An action may be subject to reclassification from unlimited to limited jurisdiction and from limited to unlimited jurisdiction. (Walker v. Super. Ct. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.)

Legal Standard

Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure defines a limited civil case as a case at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest, amounts to $25,000 or less. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 86(a)(1).)

A matter may be reclassified as a limited civil action “when

1. the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or
2. 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. Super. Ct. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.)

Reclassification from Unlimited to Limited

The California Supreme Court held that a matter may be reclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal certainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker v. Super. Ct. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) The test is whether the lack of jurisdiction is clear or virtually unattainable. (Id. at 269.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Id. at 257.) This high standard is appropriate in light of “the circumscribed procedures and recovery available in the limited civil courts.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278.)

A hearing to reclassify to a court of limited jurisdiction “is not to be perceived as a minitrial or an opportunity for a trial judge to put forth a well-educated guess of a verdict.... 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.” (Singer v. Super. Ct. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1321.) Even if the court believes it “highly unlikely” that the plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, that is not enough to defeat jurisdiction. It must appear to a legal certainty that plaintiff's injuries were not caused by the subject accident or that the plaintiff cannot, under the circumstances, recover an amount exceeding $25,000. (Walker, supra, 53 Cal.3d at 269–270.)

Reclassification from Limited to Unlimited

Conversely, a motion to reclassify a limited civil case as an unlimited civil case must be granted unless it appears to a legal certainty that plaintiff's damages will necessarily be $25,000 or less. (Ytuarte v. Super. Ct. (Kashani) (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 279.) “[T]he court should reject the plaintiff's effort to reclassify the action as unlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an “unlimited” case is certain and clear.” (Ytuarte v. Super. Ct. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266.)

The appropriate standard for determining whether a matter must be reclassified for failing to meet the jurisdictional threshold for the amount of recovery is not whether damages “realistically” will exceed the threshold, but rather whether it is possible that the damages will. (Maldonado v. Super. Ct. of Orange County (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 402.) The plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000, then the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000 is obtainable.” (Ytuarte v. Super. Ct. of Los Angeles County (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 279.)

In ruling on a motion to reclassify, the Court is not permitted to determine the merits of the claim. (Walker v. Super. Ct. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 269-270.) The Court may not properly “trespass into the province of the trier of fact.” (Maldonado v. Super. Ct. (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401-402.) Instead, the Court’s sole inquiry is whether the verdict will necessarily fall below the $25,000 amount. (Id.)

Timeline

“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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 403.040(a).) The court, on its own motion, may reclassify at any time. (Id.)

“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 Civ. Proc., § 403.040(b).)