Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV44670, Date: 2023-01-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV44670    Hearing Date: January 10, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

Plaintiff in pro per Paul Dawson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on December 6, 2021 against Defendant Hooman Nissani (“Defendant”).

Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint on September 20, 2022, alleging one cause of action for “Intentional Tort.” Plaintiff alleges that on February 3, 2021, Defendant refused to honor Plaintiff’s pre-paid car wash coupons. (FAC, p. 4.)

Plaintiff now moves to reclassify this case as a limited civil case. The motion is unopposed.

Discussion

A “limited civil case” includes, inter alia, a “case at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 86, subd. (a)(1).) “A civil action or proceeding other than a limited civil case may be referred to as an unlimited civil case.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 88.)

 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040, subdivision (a), “[t]he plaintiff, cross-complainant, or petitioner may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. The defendant or cross-defendant may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading. The court, on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time. A motion for reclassification does not extend the moving party’s time to amend or answer or otherwise respond. The court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification, regardless of any fault or lack of fault, if the case has been classified in an incorrect jurisdictional classification.”

Here, Defendant filed a demurrer to the original Complaint on July 5, 2022, with a noticed hearing date of October 14, 2022. On September 20, 2022, more than nine court days before the October 14, 2022 demurrer hearing date, Plaintiff filed his FAC. Accordingly, the Court found that Defendant’s demurrer to the Complaint was moot. (See October 14, 2022 Order.) Plaintiff’s instant motion for reclassification was filed after the time for Plaintiff to amend his initial pleading. However, as set forth above, “[t]he court, on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).). “[A] matter can be transferred (or reclassified) when (1) before trial, the complaint, petition, or related documents make the absence of jurisdiction apparent; or (2) during pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the jurisdictional amount.” (Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 230-231 [citing Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 272].)

            In support of the motion, Plaintiff provides a declaration indicating that he “incorrectly classified the above action as an unlimited civil case.” (Declaration of Paul Dawson.) Plaintiff indicates that the amount of the claim in question is less than $5,000.00. 

            Based on the foregoing, and in light of the lack of any opposition, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to reclassify the instant case.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this order.

DATED:  January 10, 2023                                                                           

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court