Case Number: BC640827 Hearing Date: May 23, 2018 Dept: 4

MOVING PARTY: Defendant The Hertz Corporation

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Sean Suh

Motion to Reclassify Case to Limited Jurisdiction

The court considered the moving and opposition papers.

BACKGROUND

On November 17, 2016, plaintiff Sean Suh filed a complaint against defendants The Hertz Corporation and Jasmine Benford for motor vehicle negligence on March 8, 2015.

On March 8, 2018, pursuant to stipulation and order, the trial date was continued from May 17, 2018 to August 16, 2018.

LEGAL STANDARD

Actions in which the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less are classified as limited jurisdiction cases. CCP § 86(a)(1). CCP § 403.040 provides, in relevant part:

“(a) The plaintiff . . . may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. The defendant . . . may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading. . . . The court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification, regardless of any fault or lack of fault, if the case has been classified in an incorrect jurisdictional classification.

(b) 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.”

“[W]e shall construe section 396 as requiring transfer when (i) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (ii) during the course of pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount, and the court affords the parties an opportunity to contest transfer.” Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 262. “This standard requires a high level of certainty that a damage award will not exceed $25,000 and is not satisfied by a finding that such an award is merely ‘unlikely’ or ‘not reasonably probable.’” Id. at 269. “The [trial] court may believe it highly unlikely that plaintiff will recover the amount demanded, but this is not enough to defeat jurisdiction, unless it appears to a legal certainty that plaintiff cannot recover the amount [of the] demand[].” Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 266, 277 (citing Walker, supra, at 270) (internal quotations omitted). See also 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.”).

DISCUSSION

Defendant The Hertz Corp. requests that the court reclassify this case as one of limited jurisdiction, pursuant to CCP § 403.040.

Defendant contends that plaintiff has not provided evidence to support his alleged damages. He has provided no medical bills to substantiate any out-of-pocket expenses and no evidence that he was unable to work following the accident. As to visits to medical centers, the bills “cannot exceed $5,000.” Further, defendant asserts, plaintiff cannot recover from the loss of his dog.

In opposition, plaintiff argues that his own injuries, pain, suffering, and emotional distress well exceed the jurisdictional limit. He contends that as a result of the incident, he had shards of glass lodged into his scalp, requiring multiple staples. He suffered intense headaches due to the impact to his head. Due to the pain, he could not sleep and had difficulty concentrating at work. He also sustained injuries to his arm, hand, face, back, and legs. He also contends that since the date of the incident, he has suffered daily from pain to each of the areas.

California Civil Jury Instructions 14.13 on general damages states: “No definite standard [or method of calculation] is prescribed by law by which to fix reasonable compensation for pain and suffering.” Further, “Compensatory damages may be awarded for bodily harm without proof of pecuniary loss. . . . There is no direct correspondence between money and harm to the body, feelings or reputation. . . . The discretion of the judge or jury determines the amount of recovery, the only standard being such an amount as a reasonable person would estimate as fair compensation.” Duarte v. Zacharia (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 1652, 1664-65 (internal quotations omitted).

The court finds that a verdict over $25,000 is not virtually unattainable based on plaintiff’s prayer for general damages and injuries. The court does not have a high level of certainty that a damage award will not exceed $25,000.

The motion to reclassify action as a limited civil case is therefore DENIED.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2018

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court

MOVING PARTY: Defendant The Hertz Corporation

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Sean Suh

Motion to Continue Trial and All Trial-Related Dates

The court considered the motion and opposition papers.

BACKGROUND

On November 17, 2016, plaintiff Sean Suh filed a complaint against defendants The Hertz Corporation and Jasmine Benford for motor vehicle negligence on March 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Benford left her car parked in the middle of the south bound lane of the I-5 with no lights on, thereby resulting in plaintiff crashing into it and sustaining injuries.

On March 8, 2018, pursuant to stipulation and order, the trial date was continued from May 17, 2018 to August 16, 2018.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1332(a), “To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain.” Under CRC Rule 3.1332(b), “A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”

Under CRC Rule 3.1332(c), “[a]lthough continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. DISCUSSION

Defendant Hertz requests that the court continue the trial date for at least six months from the current trial date, and all related dates.

Defendant contends that the parties remain at the very early stages of discovery and pre-trial preparation, largely due to the fact that the case became at issue only in March 2018 and one of the named defendants has yet to be served.

In opposition, plaintiff argues that defendant’s failure to file a responsive pleading for almost a year does not constitute good cause. As to service of defendant Benford, plaintiff contends that she is purportedly located out of state and homeless and that an application for service of the summons and complaint by publication is currently pending. Further, plaintiff contends that if the court finds good cause, plaintiff requests that the court continue the case for no more than three months.

The motion is GRANTED because defendant has shown good cause.

The court orders that trial is continued from August 16, 2018 to January 23, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 4. The Final Status Conference is continued from August 2, 2018 to January 9, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., in Department 4. Discovery cut-off (including expert witness exchange) and motion cut-off dates shall be based on the new trial date.

Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 23, 2018

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court