This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/16/2021 at 01:33:17 (UTC).

C.G.S. CUSTOM GLASS SPECIALIST, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS RAY-VELKO PETER SPEHAR, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 09/06/2019 C G S CUSTOM GLASS SPECIALIST, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RAY-VELKO PETER SPEHAR. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is SERENA R. MURILLO. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8220

  • Filing Date:

    09/06/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

SERENA R. MURILLO

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

C.G.S. CUSTOM GLASS SPECIALIST A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendants

C A P S DBA CAPS CONSTRUCTION INC. DBA CAP CONSTRUCTION AN UNKNOWN BUSINESS ENTITY

SPEHAR RAY-VELKO PETER

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

RANS ERIC JOHN ESQ.

RANS ERIC J.

Defendant Attorneys

HOROWITZ JEFFREY DAVID ESQ.

HOROWITZ JEFFREY

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) Filed by the ...)

8/10/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) Filed by the ...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF NEW MOTION DATE

7/7/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF NEW MOTION DATE

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT RAY-VELJKO PETER SPEHARS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE AS UNLIMITED; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

7/9/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT RAY-VELJKO PETER SPEHARS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE AS UNLIMITED; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

7/9/2021: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

7/7/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTI...)

1/28/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTI...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/2/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

6/9/2021: Request for Judicial Notice - Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT RAY-VELJKO PETER SPEHARS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND TO RECLASSIFY CASE AS UNLIMITED; MEMORANDUM O

6/9/2021: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition DEFENDANT RAY-VELJKO PETER SPEHARS OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND TO RECLASSIFY CASE AS UNLIMITED; MEMORANDUM O

Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF RAY-VELJKO PETER SPEHAR IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND TO RECLASSIFY CASE AS UNLIMITED

6/9/2021: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration OF RAY-VELJKO PETER SPEHAR IN SUPPORT OF THE OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL DATE AND TO RECLASSIFY CASE AS UNLIMITED

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date and to...) of 06/10/2021

6/10/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Ex Parte Application to Continue Trial Date and to...) of 06/10/2021

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF ERRATA RE MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE AS UNLIMITED

6/22/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF ERRATA RE MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE AS UNLIMITED

Answer - Answer

11/8/2019: Answer - Answer

Answer - Answer

11/12/2019: Answer - Answer

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

10/4/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

9/6/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Summons - Summons on Complaint

9/6/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

9/6/2019: Complaint - Complaint

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Reclassify Case as Unlimited: Filed By: C.G.S. CUSTOM GLASS SPECIALIST, a California corporation (Plaintiff); Result: Denied; Result Date: 08/10/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) Filed by the ...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) Filed by the Plaintiff, to Reclassify this Case to the Unlimited Jurisdiction Court scheduled for 08/10/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 08/10/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/10/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/09/2022 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 updated: Result Date to 08/10/2021; Result Type to Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion to Reclassify Case as Unlimited: Name Extension changed from TO RECLASSIFY CASE AS UNLIMITED; to Case as Unlimited; As To Parties: RAY-VELKO PETER SPEHAR (Defendant), C A P S (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Event scheduled for 08/10/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Type changed from Hearing on Motion for Leave (name extension) to Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Eric John Rans, Esq. (Attorney): First Name changed from ERIC to Eric; Last Name changed from RANS to Rans; Organization Name changed from MICHELMAN & ROBINSON, LLP to Michelman & Robinson LLP; Name Suffix: Esq. Middle Name changed from J. to John

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • DocketAddress for Eric John Rans, Esq. (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • DocketUpdated -- Jeffrey David Horowitz, Esq. (Attorney): Organization Name changed from THE HOROWITZ LAW FIRM to The Horowitz Law Firm; Name Suffix: Esq. Middle Name: David

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/05/2021
  • DocketAddress for Jeffrey David Horowitz, Esq. (Attorney) updated

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 10/04/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: C.G.S. CUSTOM GLASS SPECIALIST, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: RAY-VELKO PETER SPEHAR (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 10/01/2019; Service Cost: 130.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: C.G.S. CUSTOM GLASS SPECIALIST, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: C A P S (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 10/01/2019; Service Cost: 130.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/09/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/05/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Serena R. Murillo in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: C.G.S. CUSTOM GLASS SPECIALIST, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: RAY-VELKO PETER SPEHAR (Defendant); C A P S (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: C.G.S. CUSTOM GLASS SPECIALIST, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: RAY-VELKO PETER SPEHAR (Defendant); C A P S (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/06/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: C.G.S. CUSTOM GLASS SPECIALIST, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: RAY-VELKO PETER SPEHAR (Defendant); C A P S (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 19STLC08220 Hearing Date: August 10, 2021 Dept: 26

C.G.S. Custom Glass\r\nSpecialist v. C A P S, et al. 19STLC08220

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

\r\n\r\n

(CCP § 403.040)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff C.G.S. Custom Glass Specialist’s Motion to\r\nReclassify Action to Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction is DENIED pursuant to CCP § 403.040(b). However, the court on its own motion\r\nintends to set an OSC why the court should not Reclassify Action to Court of\r\nUnlimited Jurisdiction pursuant to CCP § 403.040(a).

ANALYSIS:

On September 6, 2019,\r\nPlaintiff C.G.S. Custom Glass Specialist (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Ray-Veljko Peter\r\nSpehar dba C A P S (“Defendant”) (erroneously sued as C A P S dba Caps\r\nConstruction, Inc. dba Cap Construction and Ray-Veljko Peter Spehar).

The Court’s denied\r\nPlaintiff’s ex parte application to reclassify the action to a court of limited\r\njurisdiction on June 10, 2021. On June 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant\r\nMotion to Reclassify pursuant to the Court’s filing schedule. (Minute Order,\r\n06/10/21.) The Motion was originally set for hearing on July 8, 2021 and then\r\ncontinued before the hearing on the Court’s own motion to August 10, 2021.\r\nDefendant filed an opposition on July 9, 2021. Although filed after the\r\noriginal hearing date, the opposition was served well in advance of the current\r\nhearing date with no apparent prejudice to Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court will\r\nconsider all the papers.

Discussion

Code of Civil\r\nProcedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for\r\nreclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend\r\nthe initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).) If the motion is\r\nmade after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may\r\nonly be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff\r\nshows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n403.040, subd. (b).)

The initial time for Plaintiff to amend the pleadings has\r\npassed, therefore, the Motion must show both that the case is incorrectly\r\nclassified and good cause for the timing of the request to reclassify. In Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53\r\nCal.3d 257, 262, the California Supreme Court held that a matter may be\r\nreclassified from unlimited to limited only if it appears to a legal\r\ncertainty that the plaintiff's damages will necessarily be less than $25,000. (Walker\r\nv. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) In Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005)\r\n129 Cal.App.4th 266, 278, the Court of Appeals examined the principles it set\r\nforth in Walker and held that\r\n“the court should reject the plaintiff's effort to reclassify the action as\r\nunlimited only when the lack of jurisdiction as an “unlimited” case is certain\r\nand clear.” (Id. at 279.)\r\nNevertheless, the plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility\r\nthat the damages will exceed $25,000.00 and the trial court must review the\r\nrecord to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.”\r\n(Ibid.)

First, Plaintiff does not demonstrate good cause for the timing of\r\nthe Motion. This action was filed in September 2019, but the instant Motion was\r\nnot filed until almost two years later. Even taking Plaintiff’s ex parte\r\napplication into account, the request to reclassify was not made until almost\r\none-and-a-half years after the Complaint was filed. Plaintiff’s attorney claims\r\nignorance of the classification of the case for the reason this Motion was not\r\nmade until this time. (Motion, Rans Decl., ¶7.) Yet the Notice of Case\r\nAssignment specifically indicates that the action is assigned to the Limited\r\nJurisdiction Court. (Notice of Assignment, 09/06/19.) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s\r\nown filing of the Civil Case Cover Sheet indicates that this is a limited\r\njurisdiction case. (Civil Case Cover Sheet, 09/06/19.) Finally, Defendant’s\r\nAnswer includes an affirmative defense regarding the damages being limited to\r\n$25,000.00. (See Answer, ¶13.) All these filings were available for Plaintiff’s\r\ncounsel review at the early stages of this action.

Plaintiff does not offer a sufficient explanation for the\r\ndelay in moving to reclassify. Plaintiff’s counsel simply states that the\r\nclassification of the case only became known in June 2021 after a conversation\r\nwith defense counsel. (Motion, Rans Decl., ¶7.) Broadly citing to “COVID\r\nrestrictions and lack of interaction with the Court” does not demonstrate good\r\ncause. This action was proceeding in the limited jurisdiction court for six\r\nmonths before the COVID-related closures.

Therefore, Plaintiff has not met the requirement establishing\r\nGood Cause for reclassification.

Conclusion

Plaintiff C.G.S. Custom Glass Specialist’s Motion to\r\nReclassify Action to Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction is DENIED.

Nevertheless, admittedly, the Complaint alleges damages of\r\n$40,000.00, and “[t]he prayer or “demand” for relief in the complaint is\r\nrelevant to valuation of the amount in controversy. (Stern v. Superior\r\nCourt (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 233 [citing Minor v. Municipal Court\r\n(1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1541, 1547].) These damages are reiterated throughout the\r\nComplaint. (Compl., ¶¶14, 19, 22, 25, 30, 33, 37.) Moreover, an invoice\r\nevidencing a demand for $40,000 is attached to the complaint as an exhibit.\r\nAccordingly, the court will set an OSC on why it should not, on its own motion,\r\npursuant to CCP § 403.040(a), reclassify\r\nthe matter to a Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction. The court will rule on\r\nthe motion at the hearing if the parties waive notice.

\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n

Court clerk to give notice.

"b"

Case Number: 19STLC08220 Hearing Date: July 8, 2021 Dept: 26

Due to Court's unavailability, Hearing on Motion for Leave to Reclassify to Unlimited Jurisdiction is continued to 08/10/2021 at 10:00 a.m."

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where C.G.S. CUSTOM GLASS SPECIALISTS is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer RANS ERIC JOHN