MICHAEL QUILLEN VS CAR CITY INC

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 17STLC03903    Hearing Date: March 10, 2020    Dept: 26

Quillen v. Car City, Inc., et al.

MOTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Michael Quillen’s Motion to Reclassify is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On October 23, 2017, Plaintiff Michael Quillen (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unfair business practices, and fraud related to Plaintiff’s purchase of a motor vehicle against Defendant Car City, Inc. (“Defendant”). Following the parties’ stipulation to arbitrate, the case was stayed until November 9, 2018. Thereafter, the parties stipulated to continue the trial date multiple times, with the latest continuance to March 9, 2020 in order to allow Plaintiff to file a motion to reclassify the action as an unlimited civil case.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify Action on January 13, 2020. Defendant filed its opposition on February 26, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on March 3, 2020.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040 allows a plaintiff to file a motion for reclassification of an action within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (CCP § 403.040(a).) If the motion is made after the time for the plaintiff to amend the pleading, the motion may only be granted if (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the plaintiff shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (CCP § 403.040(b).) In Walker v. Superior Court (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. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257.) If there is a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00, the case cannot be transferred to limited. (Ibid.) 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.)

In Ytuarte, the Court of Appeals examined the principles it set forth in Walker and held that “the 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.” (Id. at 279.) Nevertheless, the plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000.00 and the trial court must review the record to determine “whether a judgment in excess of $25,000.00 is obtainable.” (Ibid.)

Discussion

Here, because the initial time for Plaintiff to amend the pleadings has passed, Plaintiff must show that the case is incorrectly classified and that it had good cause for not moving to reclassify earlier. Plaintiff’s Motion, however, is not supported by evidence demonstrating a possibility that the damages will exceed the Court’s jurisdictional limit. The Motion is supported solely by an attorney declaration that does not address the damages amount. (Motion, Geller Decl., ¶4.) Merely stating that the case is in excess of the jurisdictional limit is insufficient as no competent evidence of the damages Plaintiff has incurred is submitted. (Id. at ¶¶4-11.) Without relevant evidence, the Court cannot find that reclassification is appropriate.

Plaintiff Michael Quillen’s Motion to Reclassify Action is DENIED.

Defendant to give notice.