Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 20STCV22858, Date: 2024-07-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV22858    Hearing Date: July 3, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68 

Date: 7-3-24 

Case # 20STCV22858

Trial Date: 8-19-24 

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY (WALKER MOTION)

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant Today’s IV, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:  Plaintiff Marieli Zayas

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Defendant moves to reclassify this case as a limited jurisdiction action.

SUMMARY OF ACTION 

On June 17, 2020, Plaintiff Marieli Zayas filed a complaint against Defendants Westin Bonaventure Hotel & Suites, and Today’s IV, Inc., among others, alleging causes of action for (1) battery; (2) negligence; (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) private nuisance; and (6) public nuisance.

On December 21, 2022, Plaintiff filed the first amended complaint. Plaintiff alleges that she was bitten by bed bugs at Westin Bonaventure, and after she informed hotel management, an investigation revealed that her room was found positive for bed bugs.

On February 23, 2023, the court sustained Defendant Today IV, Inc.’s demurrer without leave to amend as to all causes of action except for negligence.

On March 28, 2024, Defendant Today’s IV, Inc. filed this motion to reclassify. On June 26, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. No reply has been filed.

RULING Denied.

As an initial matter, Plaintiff’s opposition is untimely.  Plaintiff’s opposition was filed on June 26, 2024.  Plaintiff’s Opposition was due nine court days before the May 28, 2024 hearing date, which was June 18, 2024.  Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b). Plaintiff’s counsel states that his father was hospitalized and recently had surgery. (Janfaza Decl., ¶ 3.) “A trial court has broad discretion to overlook late-served papers and to resolve the matter on the merits.”   (Gonzalez v. Santa Clara County Dept. of Social Services (2017) 9 Cal.App.5th 162, 168 [“(E)ven if the service had been untimely, the trial court was vested with discretion to overlook the defect”]; see also Bozzi v. Nordstrom, Inc.  (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 755, 765 [“A trial court has broad discretion under rule 3.1300(d) of the Rules of Court to refuse to consider papers served and filed beyond the deadline without a prior court order finding good cause for late submission.”].) However, the Court will exercise its discretion in considering the merits of the opposition.

Defendant moves to reclassify this case from unlimited jurisdiction to limited jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiff admittedly has no plans for future treatment and has not treated since 2018. Plaintiff’s known medical expenses total approximately $2,850.00 and Plaintiff is alleging property damages of $330 per her discovery responses. (Samuels Decl., ¶¶ 2-5, Exs. A-D.) Defendant contends that although Plaintiff initially claimed she was “evaluating her options” for future treatment, as of her October 10, 2023 deposition, she testified she had no future medical appointments on calendar and only identified the treatment with the three medical providers disclosed in her discovery responses. (Samuels Decl., ¶¶ 8-11; Ex. B: See Response to Form Interrogatory Number 6.7; Ex. F: pgs. 70:25 – 71:4; 74:13-17, 22-24.)

“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.)

Plaintiff argues she will incur approximately $6,000 in future treatment, including $4,000-$6,000 for IPL treatments, and $2,000-$4,000 for further psychological counseling. Plaintiff argues she is also claiming $250,000 in general damages.

The court finds that it does not appear to a high level of certainty that Plaintiff cannot recover more than the jurisdictional amount, especially considering that Plaintiff has a claim for general damages, which are not subject to precise measurement, and thus, the possibility exists that Plaintiff’s total damages could exceed the jurisdictional limit. (Singer, supra, 70 Cal. App. 4th at 1320.)

The motion to reclassify is denied.

Plaintiff to provide notice.