Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 20STCV27093, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV27093    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On July 20, 2020, plaintiff Armine Klozhyan (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Costco Wholesale arising from a September 22, 2018 slip and fall. On August 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint naming Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Defendant”).

On July 8, 2022, Defendant filed this motion to reclassify this action as a limited civil case.  Plaintiff filed an opposition brief on July 26, 2022.  Defendant filed a reply brief on August 1, 2022. 

A motion to reclassify an unlimited civil case as a limited civil case may be granted only if the court determines that the plaintiff’s claim necessarily involves less than $25,000.00—that a greater recovery “could not be obtained” or is “virtually unobtainable.”  (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 269-270.)  A motion for reclassification must be made within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading or to respond to the initial pleading.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).)  If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party 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.  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).)

Defendant argues that this action should be reclassified because Plaintiff only sustained minor, soft tissue injuries and her medical expenses are no more than approximately $15,594 and it is “highly unlikely that a jury will find the entirety of the treatment provided to be reasonable and necessary nor, even if they do, find that the liens totaling $15,594 are the reasonable value of the treatment provided.”  (Motion, 4:8-10.)  Defendant adds that Plaintiff has not treated with any provider for her injuries in three to four years and cannot show that she will require any future medical care.  (Id., 4:10-12.)  Defendant explains that this motion was not brought earlier because it did not receive Plaintiff’s medical records from her main provider, Mid-Valley Health Center, until June 22, 2022.  These records showed that Plaintiff last treated there in December 2018 and that the billed amount for her medical treatment was $15,594.

In her opposition, Plaintiff argues that her claims will exceed $25,000 because of the pain and discomfort she suffered and continues to suffer.  (Opp., 4:5-13.)  While her economic damages are $15,94, Plaintiff is entitled to a jury to determine whether she should be awarded for any future medical expenses as needed or her past and future pain and suffering.  (See generally, Opp., Levin Decl., Ex. 2.) 

On reply, Defendant argues that no reasonable jury would believe that Plaintiff continues to suffer from her fall at its warehouse and may incur additional medical expenses due to the fall because she has had multiple subsequent overlapping injuries.  Defendant identifies a traffic accident in June 2020, and an incident in June 2021 when Plaintiff fell off an ATV and rolled down a hill in Costa Rica. 

However, future medical treatment is only part of the issue in ruling on a motion to reclassify.  The Court may not properly “trespass into the province of the trier of fact” and in particular, “pain and suffering are not subject to precise measurement by any scale and their translation into money damages is peculiarly the function of the trier of facts.”  (Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401-402 [“The unlikeliness of a judgment in excess of $25,000 is not the test”].) 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to reclassify is DENIED without prejudice. 

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.