2015-00178934-CU-BC

Reynaldo F. Espiritu vs. Aleks Vorobets

Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Reclassify Case

Filed By: Burke, George T.

Cross-defendant Reynaldo F. Espiritu’s motion to reclassify this case as a limited civil case is unopposed and is granted.

Espiritu filed the Complaint in this action on May 8, 2015 against defendant and cross-complainant Aleks Vorobets, as an individual and as trustee of FSF, and defendant FSF, alleging causes of action for rescission, fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, elder financial abuse, and common counts.

On December 7, 2016, Vorobets filed a Cross-Complaint against Espiritu, alleging two causes of action for (1) breach of contract, and (2) common counts. On January 23, 2018, Espiritu voluntarily dismissed his Complaint without prejudice in its entirety. After some further motion practice related to the dismissal, Espiritu ultimately filed his complaint as a separate action, under case number 34-2018-00230661, on April 10, 2018. On May 15, 2018, the Court denied defendants’ motion to strike the Complaint in the second action. Accordingly, only the Cross-Complaint remains at issue in this action.

The Cross-Complaint states on its face that the “amount demanded exceeds

$25,000.00.” (ROA 319.) However, Espiritu asserts that the amount in controversy in the Cross-Complaint is actually $2,000. This is because the Cross-Complaint alleges that Espiritu breached two oral contracts, each to pay Vorobets $1,000, in exchange for alleged debt settlement services performed by Vorobets for Espiritu. (Cr. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 18, 23, 26, 32.) Espiritu also asserts that this motion is timely, because the Court did not deny defendants’ motion to strike the complaint in the second action until May

15, 2018, and this motion was brought shortly thereafter.

The Court agrees that the Cross-Complaint alleges only $2,000 in damages, plus interest and attorney’s fees. A motion to reclassify an unlimited case to a limited case may only be granted where the Court determines that a recovery in excess of $25,000 “could not be obtained” or is “virtually unobtainable.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 269-270.) Here, Espiritu has made such a showing. The motion is not opposed. As this action is a case where the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000, it is properly classified as a limited civil case. (CCP §§ 85; 86(a)(1).)

Moreover, the Court finds that the motion has been timely brought. Pursuant to CCP § 403.040(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, and (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. Here, Espiritu has shown both.

The clerk shall reclassify this action from an unlimited civil case to limited civil case. No reclassification fee is required. (CCP §403.040(d)(2).)