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.)
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
(Walker v. Super. Ct. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.)
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.)
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.)
“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:
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 403.040(b).)
On November 16, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to reclassify case from an unlawful detainer to an unlimited jurisdiction civil case. On November 20, 2020, default was entered as to Defendant Bolt Mobility California, LLC. On December 16, 2020, the Court scheduled an OSC re Entry of Default Judgement for today’s date. ANYLSIS: The request for entry of default judgment is DENIED.
Jan 14, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Benny Newman Hearing Date – January 11, 2021 Motion to Reclassify The prior ruling was set aside and the matter set for hearing on 1/11/21. No briefs addressing the substantive merits of the motion were received. The ruling of 6/24/20 remains the tentative of the court.
Jan 11, 2021
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion to Reclassify as Limited Civil Jurisdiction Case by Defendant, County of Los Angeles is DENIED. The court cannot conclude with a “high level of certainty” that a damage award will not exceed the jurisdictional limits. (Singer v. Superior Court (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 1315, 1320.) Although Plaintiff has incurred medical bills of only $300, Plaintiff contends she has scarring that will require further medical treatment. Further, Plaintiff may be entitled to general damages of an indeterminate amount.
Jan 07, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
C/O: 05-23-21 TRIAL DATE: 06-07-21 PROCEEDINGS: COMPLAINT MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CONTINUATION MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Young Chow Dai RESP. PARTY: Defendants Mauro Fiore Jr. APC and Krystale L. Rosal MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CONTINUATION (CCP § ??) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Young Chow Dai’s Complaint Motion to Reclassify Continuation is DENIED.
Jan 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Motion on Calendar On November 10, 2020, Verlton Brooks Glaspie Jr. filed a motion to reclassify this case as limited civil. On November 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. On December 3, 2020, the parties filed a Stipulation re: Dismissal of Action.
Dec 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court will thus deny the motion to reclassify.
Dec 11, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On March 16, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to reclassify the action to civil limited jurisdiction, which was granted on July 15, 2020. (7/15/20 Minute Order.) Also on March 16, 2020, Defendant filed the instant Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint (the “Demurrer”). Plaintiff filed an Opposition on May 11, and Defendant filed a Reply on July 8.
Dec 10, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Los Angeles County, CA
Sanchez Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Limited Jurisdiction is DENIED. Defendant has not established that the case is incorrectly classified. (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(b).) The court may transfer an action to a limited jurisdiction department if “it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1992) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 262.)
Dec 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Sanchez Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Limited Jurisdiction is DENIED. Defendant has not established that the case is incorrectly classified. (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(b).) The court may transfer an action to a limited jurisdiction department if “it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1992) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 262.)
Dec 09, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Yan, et al. (19PSCV01036) _____________________________________________ Defendant Meng Yan’s MOTION TO RECLASSIFY FROM UNLIMITED JURISDICTION TO LIMITED JURISDICTION Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 11/28/20, 9:32 a.m.; due 11/18/20) Tentative Ruling Defendant Meng Yan’s Motion to Reclassify from Unlimited Jurisdiction to Limited Jurisdiction is DENIED as MOOT. Background Plaintiff TTS (USA) Traveling Co. Ltd.
Dec 03, 2020
Collections
Collections
Los Angeles County, CA
SC119086 Hearing Date December 3, 2020 Defendant’s Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Court’s June 24, 2020 Ruling Defendants filed a motion to reclassify this case as a limited civil action, arguing damages could not exceed $25,000. The motion was set for April 21, 2020 but continued to June 24, 2020. Plaintiff was to give notice of the continuance. The court denied the motion. Defendants argue the ruling should be set aside because they never received notice of the continued date.
Dec 03, 2020
Other
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Yan, et al. (19PSCV01036) _____________________________________________ Defendant Meng Yan’s MOTION TO RECLASSIFY FROM UNLIMITED JURISDICTION TO LIMITED JURISDICTION Responding Party: None (unopposed, as of 11/28/20, 9:32 a.m.; due 11/18/20) Tentative Ruling Defendant Meng Yan’s Motion to Reclassify from Unlimited Jurisdiction to Limited Jurisdiction is DENIED as MOOT. Background Plaintiff TTS (USA) Traveling Co. Ltd.
Dec 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 18STCV06296 Hearing Date: December 2, 2020 [TENTATIVE] order RE: motion to reclassify as a limited civil case Plaintiff Tracey Braxton (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants City of Gardena and Officer Steve Kim (“Defendants”) following a motor vehicle collision. Defendants move to reclassify this case as a limited jurisdiction case, which Plaintiff opposes.
Dec 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 1 Discover Motion C/O: 4-5-21 POS: OK Trial Date: 4-19-21 SUBJECT: MOTION TO RECLASSIFY AS COMPLEX CASE MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Eugenio Derbez, individually and as Trustee of the Ellis Drive Trust Dated August 22, 2016 RESP. PARTY: None as of 11-19-20. Due on 11-16-20. TENTATIVE RULING Plaintiff Derbez’s Motion to Reclassify as Complex Case is DENIED under CRC Rule 3.403.
Dec 01, 2020
H. Jay Ford
Los Angeles County, CA
Legal Standard A defendant or cross-defendant may file a motion to reclassify “within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) If a party files a motion to reclassify after this time frame then the moving party must “show[] good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b).) In any event, the court may reclassify a case on its own motion at any time. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).)
Nov 19, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
On October 1, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to reclassify case from an unlawful detainer to an unlimited jurisdiction civil case. ANALYSIS: I.
Nov 16, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Conclusion Plaintiffs Victoria Rodriguez and Linda Luna’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.
Nov 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
"A motion to reclassify an unlimited civil case as a limited civil case may be granted only if the court determines that plaintiff's claim necessarily involves less than $25,000; i.e., that a greater recovery 'could not be obtained' or is 'virtually unobtainable.'" Edmon and Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) at ¶ 3:119 (citing Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 269-270).
Nov 03, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
"A motion to reclassify an unlimited civil case as a limited civil case may be granted only if the court determines that plaintiff's claim necessarily involves less than $25,000; i.e., that a greater recovery 'could not be obtained' or is 'virtually unobtainable.'" Edmon and Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) at ¶ 3:119 (citing Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 269-270).
Nov 03, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
"A motion to reclassify an unlimited civil case as a limited civil case may be granted only if the court determines that plaintiff's claim necessarily involves less than $25,000; i.e., that a greater recovery 'could not be obtained' or is 'virtually unobtainable.'" Edmon and Karnow, Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2020) at ¶ 3:119 (citing Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 269-270).
Nov 03, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
San Diego County, CA
Responding Party: Plaintiff Top Team Realty Motion to Reclassify The court considered the moving and opposition papers. RULING The motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND On March 2, 2020, plaintiff Top Team Realty, Inc. filed a UD complaint against Jude Okwaraibekwe and Ijeoma Okwaraibekwe. On July 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a FAC based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. On September 10, 2020, the court related this case with the breach of habitability case case no. 20TRCV00005.
Oct 29, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Responding Party: Plaintiff Top Team Realty Motion to Reclassify The court considered the moving and opposition papers. RULING The motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND On March 2, 2020, plaintiff Top Team Realty, Inc. filed a UD complaint against Jude Okwaraibekwe and Ijeoma Okwaraibekwe. On July 20, 2020, plaintiff filed a FAC based on a three-day notice to pay rent or quit. On September 10, 2020, the court related this case with the breach of habitability case case no. 20TRCV00005.
Oct 29, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
On July 17, 2020, Plaintiff MCB Trust filed a motion to reclassify this unlawful detainer action from limited civil to unlimited civil. On August 17, 2020, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to reclassify. On September 2, 2020 the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. On October 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC).
Oct 28, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
C/O: 01-11-21 TRIAL DATE: 01-26-21 PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE FROM LIMITED JURISDICTION TO UNLIMITED JURISDICTION PURSUANT TO CCP § 403.040 MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Olawale B. Onayemi, Trustee of the Olawale Babatunde Onayemi Living Trust RESP. PARTY: None MOTION TO RECLASSIFY (CCP § 403.040) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify Case from Limited to Unlimited Jurisdiction is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the reclassification fee within ten (10) days of this order.
Oct 27, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
WEHMEIER vs HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify TENTATIVE RULING: The motion to reclassify is denied. Defendant moves for an order to reclassify this case as a civil limited case on the ground maximum potential damages do not exceed $25,000. “. . . 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.
Oct 26, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.