Judge: Walter P. Schwarm, Case: 30-2021-01209864, Date: 2022-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Defendant’s (Saddle Ranch Sunset, LLC) Motion to Reclassify as a Limited Case (Motion), filed on 5-17-22 under ROA No. 51, is GRANTED.

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 states in part, “(a) The 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. [¶] (b) 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, cross-complaint, or other initial pleading, 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.” 

Code of Civil Procedure section 86 states in in part, “(a) The following civil cases and proceedings are limited civil cases: [¶] (1) 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 of Civil Procedure section 85 states in part, “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 twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). 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.”

Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 277-278 (Ytuarte), provides, “Accordingly under Walker the superior court must deny the motion to reclassify the case as limited (and thus keep the matter in the unlimited civil court) unless it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. This standard of ‘legal certainty’ is not met when it appears a verdict within the unlimited court's jurisdiction is ‘possible.’ [Citations.]  Viewed from the perspective of the party opposing reclassification (from unlimited to limited), to defeat the motion (or oppose the OSC) the party must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the verdict will exceed $25,000. [Citation.] [¶] The high threshold required to reclassify a case from an unlimited action to a limited action is warranted in view of the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts. ‘A transfer must be made only when the lack of jurisdiction is clear on the face of the record before the court because the transfer [i.e., reclassification as a limited case] deprives the plaintiff from attempting to prove damages greater than those available in [the limited civil] court.’ [Citation.] To that end superior courts have long been cautioned to order transfers sparingly and only in the clearest of circumstances after a thorough review of the facts of the case.  [Citation.]” (Italics in Ytuarte.)

The Complaint, filed on 7-12-21 under ROA No. 2, pleads, “On September 12, 2020 Plaintiff was lawfully on the premises of Defendants’ restaurant as a patron with his family. As Plaintiff consumed his meal, Plaintiff was burned by hot syrup and/or similar substance served with his meal, causing Plaintiff to sustain the serious injuries and damages . . .” (Complaint, ¶ 8.) In the Prayer for Relief, “Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants as follows: [¶] 1. For general damages in a sum according to proof; [¶] 2. For medical, hospital, and related expenses according to proof; [¶] 3. For loss of earnings according to proof; [¶] 4. For loss of future earning capacity according to proof; [¶] 5. For pre- and post-judgment interest and costs of suit incurred herein; [¶] 6. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper.” (Complaint, 4:19-5:1.)

Defendant has shown that Plaintiff’s medical records were served on Defendant on 4-27-22. (5-17-22 Young IV Decl., ¶ 4 and Exhibit B.) In response to Defendant’s Requests for Production of Documents, Plaintiff provided a medical bill totaling $175. (5-17-22 Young IV Decl., ¶ 9.) Although Plaintiff’s seeks damages for loss of earnings and loss of future earning capacity in his Complaint, in response to questions about Plaintiff’s claims for loss of earnings and loss of future earning capacity, Plaintiff responded “Not Applicable.” (5-17-22 Young IV Decl., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Reclassify as a Limited Case (Opposition), filed on 9-21-22 under ROA No. 63, contends, “Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory 6.4 indicated that Plaintiff presented to Urgent Care for his injuries. Thereafter, via telephonic and email discussions, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendant that Plaintiff is experiencing nerve damage to his finger, as a result of the burn, and that Plaintiff is consulting with a pediatric specialist to run nerve conduction tests. Plaintiff’s counsel provided Defendant with updated billing and records. Because Plaintiff is being evaluated for nerve damage due to the severity of the burn, and diagnoses and treatment is underway, the amount in controversy far exceeds $25,000.00.” (Opposition; 2:24-3:1.)  Plaintiff has not provided any evidence in support of the costs Plaintiff has incurred or will incur for the evaluation and/or treatment of the alleged nerve damage.

In support of its Reply to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Reclassify as Limited Case (Reply) filed on 9-26-22 under ROA No. 67, Defendant has submitted Plaintiff’s medical records and bills that Defendant has received since Defendant filed its Motion to Reclassify. (9-26-22 Young IV Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 3.) Plaintiff’s counsel provided to Defendant three documents comprising of a bill for $20, an order for continuation of treatment from the Providence Speech and Hearing Center, and a recommendation form from the Providence Speech and Hearing Center. (9-26-22 Young IV Decl., ¶ 2 and Exhibit A.)

Based on the foregoing, the total damages incurred by Plaintiff appear to be limited to $195. Thus, the evidence demonstrates to a legal certainty that Plaintiff’s damages will be less than $25,000.00.  Therefore, the court GRANTS Defendant’s (Saddle Ranch Sunset, LLC) Motion to Reclassify as a Limited Case filed on 5-17-22 under ROA No. 51.

Defendant is to give notice.