Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV32118, Date: 2025-06-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV32118    Hearing Date: June 5, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     June 5, 2025               TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Aisulu Temirtas et al. v. BCF I Warner Center, LLC

CASE NO.:                 24STCV32118           

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY AS LIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION (WALKER MOTION)

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant BCF I Warner Center, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Aisulu Termirtas, et al. (13 Plaintiffs)

CASE HISTORY:

·         12/05/24: Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for violation of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies, Act, invasion of privacy, and declaratory relief. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant prepared investigative consumer reports in connection with Plaintiffs’ rental applications without the appropriate authorizations and disclosures.

Defendant moves to reclassify this action as limited civil jurisdiction.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant moves to reclassify this action as limited civil jurisdiction.

Legal Standard for Reclassification Motions

A defendant to an action may move for reclassification of an action within the time allowed to respond to the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(a).) 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.” (Id.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 85 sets forth the jurisdictional limits of “limited civil” classification as follows:

An action or special proceeding shall be treated as a limited civil case if all of the following conditions are satisfied, and, notwithstanding any statute that classifies an action or special proceeding as a limited civil case, an action or special proceeding shall not be treated as a limited civil case unless all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) The amount in controversy does not exceed thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000). As used in this section, "amount in controversy" means the amount of the demand, or the recovery sought, or the value of the property, or the amount of the lien, that is in controversy in the action, exclusive of attorneys' fees, interest, and costs.

(b) The relief sought is a type that may be granted in a limited civil case.

(c) The relief sought, whether in the complaint, a cross-complaint, or otherwise, is exclusively of a type described in one or more statutes that classify an action or special proceeding as a limited civil case or that provide that an action or special proceeding is within the original jurisdiction of the municipal court, including, but not limited to, the following provisions:

[. . .]

(4) Section 86.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 85 (a), (b), (c)(4).) In turn, Section 86(a)(1) provides:

(a) The following civil cases and proceedings are limited civil cases:

(1) Cases at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy amounts to thirty-five thousand dollars ($35,000) or less. . . .

(Code Civ. Proc. § 86(a)(1).)

If it becomes apparent that the matter will “necessarily” result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount and the court affords the parties an opportunity to contest, the Court must order a transfer to a limited jurisdiction court. (Walker v. Sup. Ct. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.) The standard requires a high level of certainty that the damage amount will not exceed $35,000 and is not satisfied by a finding that such an award is merely “unlikely” or “not reasonably probable.” (Id. at 269.)

Under the Walker standard a matter may be reclassified as a limited civil action “when (i) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (ii) during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court's jurisdictional amount … .” (Walker v. Superior Court, supra, 53 Cal.3d at p. 262.) Even more appropriately, “… the test [is] … whether ‘lack of jurisdiction is clear’… ‘[or] virtually unattainable. …’ ” ( Id. at p. 269, citation omitted.) This standard involves an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the merits of the claim, and according to Walker, requires a “high level of certainty that [the] damage award will not exceed $ 25,000.” (Ibid., italics added.) The Supreme Court explained: “ ‘The [trial] court may believe it highly unlikely that plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, but this is not enough to defeat jurisdiction, unless it appears to a legal certainty that plaintiff cannot recover the amount [of the] demand[].’ ” (Id. at p. 270.)

(Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276-77 [bold emphasis added].)

Analysis

            Defendant moves for reclassification of this action to limited civil jurisdiction on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ claims for damages are capped at a statutory maximum of $10,000, pursuant to Civil Code section 1786.50 subdivision (a)(1). Although Plaintiffs dispute Defendant’s calculation of the maximum potential liability, the Court need not resolve this question on this motion, because Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief in their third cause of action for unfair competition. (See Complaint ¶ 89.) Injunctive relief is not available in limited civil actions. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 86.) Defendant’s bare assertion that a money judgment would satisfy Plaintiffs’ injuries is not explained, and Defendant’s cursory citations to authorities concerning declaratory, rather than injunctive relief are inapposite. (See Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irrigation District Employee Pension Plan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497; Cardellini v. Casey (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 389, 396.) The Court is similarly unmoved by Defendant’s equally conclusory contention that Plaintiffs are not entitled to injunctive relief as tenants. Defendant has therefore failed to demonstrate that this court’s lack of jurisdiction is sufficiently clear to warrant reclassification.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  June 5, 2025                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.