Judge: Timothy Patrick Dillon, Case: 22STCV12130, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV12130    Hearing Date: January 6, 2023    Dept: 73

MONIQUE STRONG v. PHILIP DeLUCA

Counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant (Movant): Philip P. DeLuca, pro per

Counsel for Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant (Opposition): Monique Strong, pro per

Motion for an Order of Reclassification from Civil Unlimited to Limited Jurisdiction

(filed 10/14/22)

TENTATIVE RULING

The motion is denied.

I.                    Background

On April 11, 2022, Monique Strong (“Plaintiff”) filed an action against Philip P. DeLuca (“Defendant”) arising from legal services rendered by Defendant to Plaintiff in a marriage dissolution case. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant committed fraud and breached his fiduciary duty and seeks to recover the retainer fee paid to Defendant in the amount of $10,000, as well as punitive damages.  Defendant filed his Answer on May 5, 2022, and a Cross-Complaint on May 9, 2022.

On October 14, 2022, Defendant filed the instant Motion for an Order of Reclassification from Civil Unlimited to Limited Jurisdiction (the “Motion”). Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 16.

II.                  Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).)  If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).)  

“A party seeking to reclassify a case from unlimited to limited faces a “high threshold.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.) The trial court must conclude “that the verdict will ‘necessarily’ fall short of the superior court jurisdictional requirement of a claim exceeding $25,000.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 270 (Walker).) “The unlikeliness of a judgment in excess of $25,000 is not the test. The trial court reviews the record to determine whether the result is obtainable. Simply stated, the trial court looks to the possibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability.” (Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 402 (Maldonado).)”  (Hiona v. Superior Ct. of City & Cnty. of San Francisco (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 866, 872.)  Thus, the court evaluates the amount fairly in controversy; it does not adjudicate the merits of the claim. (Chahal v. Superior Court (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 399, 402 (Chahal).)

III.               Discussion

Defendant seeks to reclassify this action on the basis that Plaintiff is unlikely to recover any damages. (Mot., p. 5.) Defendant provides a copy of the Retainer Agreement and written correspondence between the parties to show (1) Plaintiff agreed to and did pay a retainer fee of only $10,000, which seemingly relates to the general damages of the same amount that Plaintiff seeks to recover, and (2) Defendant never made a false promise to recover delinquent spousal support payments from Plaintiff’s husband in 30-60 days. The thrust of Defendant’s argument is that absent Plaintiff’s allegations of fraud, Plaintiff cannot recover an award of punitive damages over the jurisdictional amount, let alone upon the fraud and breach of fiduciary duty causes of action.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant seeks to eliminate issues and recoverable amounts that is more appropriately brought as a motion for summary judgment.

The court agrees with Plaintiff.  Defendant quotes several passages from the Retainer Agreement and submits written correspondence between the parties that necessarily involve the determination of the merits of Plaintiff’s claim. This is improper on a motion for reclassification. Reclassification of an action involves “an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the merits of the claim.” (Chahal, supra, at p. 402.) Defendant’s arguments aim to “eradicate Plaintiff’s allegations” (Mot., p. 4) and are thus better suited for a motion for summary judgment. (See Civ. Proc. Code, § 437c.)  “The trial court must assume the existence of the fact supporting the complaint; it may not evaluate the case based upon its own determination of the merits.” (Weil & Brown et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022), sec. 3:119.1.)

Moreover, the court finds Defendant has failed to demonstrate an award over $25,000 is not obtainable. Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, the “unlikeliness of a judgment in excess of $25,000 is not the test.” (Maldonado, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 402.) Plaintiff seeks general damages of $10,000 and punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294. Section 3294, subdivision (a) states: “In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.” Here, Plaintiff has alleged a cause of action for fraud, which may give rise to an award of punitive damages. Punitive damages in addition to the $10,000 prayer for general damages means Plaintiff’s recovery could exceed $25,000. Defendant does not show otherwise. It does not appear to a “legal certainty” that Plaintiff’s “damages will necessarily be $25,000 or less.” (Weil & Brown et al., at sec. 3.119.)

 Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED. 

IV.               Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.