Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV28521, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV28521    Hearing Date: September 20, 2022    Dept: 29

Avo Gharapetkanarzari v. Danny Thai

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

Motion to Reclassify from Unlimited Civil Jurisdiction to Limited Civil Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Danny Thai

________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

TENTATIVE 

The Motion to Reclassify as Limited Civil Jurisdiction Case is DENIED.  

Legal Standard

“If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party to amend that party’s initial pleading or to respond to a complaint, the court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification only if both of the following conditions are satisfied: 

(1) the case is incorrectly classified. 

(2) the moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.”

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(b).  

The court can transfer an action to limited jurisdiction if “it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1992) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 262.)

The standard requires a “high level of certainty” that a damage award will not exceed jurisdictional limits. 

“The court explained: ‘This standard requires¿a high level of certainty¿that a damage award will not exceed $25,000 and is not satisfied by a finding that such an award is merely 'unlikely' or 'not reasonably probable.' " (Id. at p. 269, italics added.) Consequently, in deciding this issue, the trial court is¿not permitted to determine the merits of the plaintiff's claim(s); its sole inquiry is whether ‘the verdict will 'necessarily' fall short of the superior court jurisdictional requirement of a claim exceeding $25,000." (Singer v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 1315, 1320.)

Discussion

Defendant moves to reclassify the action as a limited jurisdiction action arguing that Plaintiff has only incurred $14,188 in medical bills. Further, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has indicated she does not require any additional treatment for her injuries. Additionally, Plaintiff is not making a claim for loss of earnings or property damage. Defendant argues the amount fairly in controversy is at best, $15,688.00 when including purported future medical expenses. Moreover, Defendant argues that both parties have valued this case at less than $25,000. Plaintiff served a 998 Offer to Compromise for $15,000.  Thus, Defendant argues her damages will not exceed $25,000.

Based on the evidence, it does not appear to a “legal certainty” that Plaintiff cannot recover more than the jurisdictional amount.  The amount of medical expenses incurred by Plaintiff is not dispositive. Plaintiff’s complaint also alleges general damages. Lastly, the CCP 998 offer to compromise is a settlement offer, and a settlor may pay less in settlement than if found liable after a trial.

Conclusion

As such, Defendant’s motion to reclassify from unlimited civil jurisdiction to limited civil jurisdiction court is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.