PRINCESS NAVA CELO VS GERARDO MARCELO MARTINEZ

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC04181    Hearing Date: July 01, 2020    Dept: 26

Celo v. Martinez, et al.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY

(CCP § 403.040)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Princess Neva Celo’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is GRANTED. THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR COLLECTION OF FEES AND REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT. PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS’ NOTICE OF THIS ORDER.

ANALYSIS:

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff Princess Neva Celo (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant Gerardo Marcelo Martinez (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence. On August 2, 2019, Defendant filed his answer. Thereafter, on February 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Reclassify (the “Motion”). Defendant filed an opposition on April 6, 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

The initial time for Plaintiff to amend the pleadings having passed, Plaintiff must show both that the case is incorrectly classified and that she has good cause for not moving to reclassify earlier. Plaintiff presents evidence that this action was filed without her knowledge by Russell M. Frandsen, Esq., an attorney with whom she had no retainer agreement. (Motion, Celo Decl., ¶2 and Exh. A.) Rather, Plaintiff was informed by Attorney Fransden on August 20, 2019 that the attorney she had retained had gone into a different area of law. (Ibid.) On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a substitution of attorney naming Ronald Grzyninsk, Esq. as her attorney. It is Plaintiff’s contention, therefore, that Attorney Fransden filed this as a limited civil action without consulting or informing her and that upon her new attorney’s substitution into the case, Plaintiff and her counsel of record determined that it should have been filed as an unlimited action. Based on this evidence, which Defendant does not dispute, the Court finds good cause for the timing of this Motion. Plaintiff initially sought reclassification through an ex parte application in January, 2020. The application having been denied for lack of exigency, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion shortly thereafter.

Regarding Plaintiff evidence that there is a possibility her damages will exceed, both parties agree that Plaintiff claims medical specials of $8,223.77 and lost wages of $4,052.00, for a total of $12,275.77. (Motion, pp. 3:19-4:2; Opp., p. 5:16-22.) The Court notes that the opposition miscalculated Plaintiff’s total medical specials as $7,423,77, but the itemized amounts in the opposition are the same as in the Motion and in fact, total $8,223.77. Additionally, Plaintiff claims $2,744.76 in property damages. (Opp.. Birch Decl., ¶4 and Exh. C.)

The Complaint not only seeks recovery of these specials, but of general damages, the only limit on which is reasonableness. (Civ. Code, § 3359; Loth v. Truck–A–Way Corp. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 757, 764-768.) In this personal injury action, it is possible that pain and suffering damages of more than $10,000.00 could be awarded to Plaintiff. Defendant’s opposition does not address why such an award is not possible. With total claimed damages of more than $15,000.00 and claims for general damages based on “physical pain, fright, mental suffering, sleep disruption, loss of enjoyment of life, physical impairment, inconvenience, anxiety, worry, apprehension, indignity and emotional distress,” the Court finds Plaintiff has shown the possibility that her damages will exceed $25,000.00. (Compl., ¶11.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to Reclassify Action is GRANTED. THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR COLLECTION OF FEES AND REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT. PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS.

Moving party to give notice.