Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV17139, Date: 2024-04-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17139    Hearing Date: April 29, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant Target Corporation          

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion to Reclassify  

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Target Corporation (“Defendant”) moves the court for an order reclassifying this action, filed by plaintiff Emily Keough (“Plaintiff’), as a limited jurisdiction case.

“If a party files a motion for reclassification after the time for that party . . . 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 the following conditions are satisfied: [¶] (1) The case is incorrectly classified [, and] [¶] (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §¿403.040, subd. (b).)  “A party seeking to reclassify a case from unlimited to limited faces a ‘high threshold.’  [Citation.]  The trial court must conclude ‘that the verdict will “necessarily” fall short of the superior court jurisdictional requirement of a claim exceeding $25,000.’  [Citation.]”  (Hiona v. Superior Court of City and County of San Francisco (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 866, 872; Code Civ. Proc., §¿85, subd. (a) [amending statute to provide that a limited civil case is one in which the amount of controversy does not exceed $35,000].)  

The court finds that Defendant has not met its burden to show that this case is incorrectly classified and that a verdict in favor of Plaintiff with necessarily fall short of the jurisdictional requirement.  (Code Civ. Proc., §¿403.040, subd. (b); Hiona, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 872.)

The court acknowledges that Defendant has submitted Plaintiff’s discovery responses in which Plaintiff (1) produced documents establishing that she has incurred $7,173.31 in medical bills, and (2) stated that she has not suffered lost wages.  (Mendoza Decl., Ex. D [medical bills totaling $7,173.31]; Mendoza Decl., Ex. C, PDF p. 120 [Pl. response to Request for Production of Document No. 11 stating “Responding Party is not making a claim for loss of wages”].)  However, the court finds that this does not establish that Plaintiff’s recovery will “necessarily” fall short of the $25,000 jurisdictional minimum.[1]

First, Defendant has not produced evidence establishing that Plaintiff will not incur additional medical expenses in the future for which Defendant may be liable if she is successful on her claims.  Second, although Defendant has asserted that “Plaintiff’s general damages, based on the last date of treatment of January 25, 2022, do not support the classification of an unlimited civil action matter[,]” Defendant has not submitted competent evidence in support of that contention.  (Mendoza Decl., ¶ 14.)  In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that she has suffered emotional distress and emotional injuries (Compl., ¶¶ 15, 25, 35) and prays for punitive damages (Compl., ¶¶ 40, 51, 62; Compl., Prayer, ¶ 2).  Plaintiff’s discovery responses further indicate that she suffered emotional injuries.  (Mendoza Decl., Ex. C, PDF pp. 77 [Pl. response to Form Interrogatory No. 6.2 stating that she “felt emotionally distraught due to the fact that she experienced a near death like experience”], 167 [Pl. response to Special Interrogatory No. 24 stating that she “suffered physical and emotional injuries”] [emphasis added].)  Defendant has not presented evidence or argument showing that Plaintiff’s recovery must be limited only to the $7,173.31 in medical bills in light of the Complaint’s prayer for punitive damages and allegations that Plaintiff sustained emotional injuries.

Thus, the court finds that Defendant has not met its burden to show that a verdict in favor of Plaintiff “will necessarily fall short of the superior court jurisdictional requirement” for an unlimited civil case and therefore has not shown that this “case is incorrectly classified.”  (Hiona, supra, 48 Cal.App.5th at p. 872 [internal quotations and citations omitted]; Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (b)(1).)

The court therefore denies Defendant’s motion.

ORDER

            The court denies defendant Target Corporation’s motion to reclassify.

            The court orders plaintiff Emily Keough to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  April 29, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court