COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES VS JOSEPH EDWARD GIANCASPRO

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17STLC05478    Hearing Date: November 13, 2019    Dept: 94

Sandra Tolbert v. City of Los Angeles, et al

MOTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Sandra Tolbert’s Motion for Reclassification is CONTINUED to March 16, 2020 at 10:30 am in Department 94.

ANALYSIS:

I. Discussion

On June 9, 2017, Plaintiff Sandra Tolbert (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant City of Los Angeles (“Defendant”) alleging claims for premises liability and negligence. On March 7, 2018, Defendant filed its answer. Thereafter, on July 30, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify (the “Motion”).

II. Legal Standard

“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.”

(CCP § 403.040(b).)

The appropriate standard for determining whether an action should be reclassified from a limited to an unlimited jurisdiction court is not whether the damages “realistically” will exceed the jurisdictional threshold of recovery, but rather whether it is possible that the damages will. (See Maldonado v. Superior Court of Orange County (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 402 [“the trial court looks to the possibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability.”].) 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. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 279.)

III. Analysis

Plaintiff’s motion is brought after the time for it to amend the Complaint, so she must demonstrate both that the case is incorrectly classified and that the motion is timely.

Plaintiff asserts that she seeks reclassification on the basis that recent discovery has shown that recovery should be in excess of the jurisdictional amount of a limited jurisdiction classification. Plaintiff contends that medical bills are still being incurred and Plaintiff suffered loss of her eye, which is causing her significant pain and suffering. Plaintiff states that the new information was brought forth in Plaintiff’s deposition on May 1, 2019, where it was revealed that there was a link between Defendant’s negligence and Plaintiff’s blindness in one eye.

As evidence, Plaintiff submits only the declaration of her attorney stating that Plaintiff did not inform her counsel of her eye injury, but that counsel believes that Plaintiff’s eye injury was caused by Defendant’s negligence. (Mot. Ahn Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) Plaintiff’s counsel believes that damages will exceed $25,000.000. (Id. at ¶ 6.)

However, the declaration does not offer any facts demonstrating Plaintiff’s attorney’s basis for such knowledge, nor is the declaration corroborated by any documentary evidence of the amount of damages allegedly incurred by Plaintiff, such as copies of medical bills. Plaintiff has not provided evidence that demonstrates the possibility that its damages exceed the jurisdictional limit of this court. Furthermore, while Plaintiff states that the relevant information was discovered in her deposition on May 1, 2019, no explanation is offered for why this information could not have been discovered earlier or why Plaintiff waited almost three months after her deposition to file the instant motion. Thus, the court cannot find good cause for Plaintiff’s failure to bring this motion earlier.

The hearing on Plaintiff’s motion to reclassify is continued to March 16, 2020 at 10:30 am in Department 94 to allow Plaintiff to submit competent evidence regarding the factors discussed above. Plaintiff’s supplemental briefing and evidence are to be filed at least 16 court days prior to the new hearing date. Failure to comply with the court’s orders may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied. Opposition and reply papers to be filed per the Code of Civil Procedure.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.