Case Number: BC544982    Hearing Date: September 04, 2014    Dept: 93

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 93

CYNTIA JUN,

Plaintiff(s),
v.

GARY WESLEY, et al.

Defendant(s). Case No.: BC544982

Hearing Date: September 4, 2014

[TENTATIVE] RULING RE:
DEFENDANT GARY W. COOPER’S MOTION TO RECLASSIFY THIS CASE TO A COURT OF LIMITED JURISDICTION

Defendant Gary W. Cooper’s Motion to Reclassify this Case to a Court of Limited Jurisdiction is GRANTED.

Defendant filed this motion on July 30, 2014, and served the motion on Plaintiff’s counsel by mail on that date. (Motion, Proof of Service.) Plaintiff has not filed an Opposition to the Motion. Accordingly, this Court must assume that Plaintiff does not oppose reclassification of the action to a limited jurisdiction court.

Background

Plaintiff alleges she was injured on August 28, 2013, in a motor vehicle accident involving Defendant. (Complaint ¶6.) Plaintiff’s medical specials are limited to the amount her medical providers have accepted in payment for her treatment. (See Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541.) Here, Plaintiff incurred past medical expenses of $3,160.00. (Motion, Reimers Decl. (“Reimers Decl.”) Exh. A.) In addition, according to Defendant, the estimate to repair Plaintiff’s vehicle is for $1,086.62. (Id., Exh. B.)

Plaintiff was discharged from chiropractic care on November 1, 2013, which appears from the documents submitted by Defendant to be the final evaluation and treatment of Plaintiff’s condition. (Id., Exh.A.) As of November 1, 2013, Cedar Medical Group found that Plaintiff had “reached maximum medical improvement and therefore [was] discharged from our care.” (Id., p.5.) Given that the only evidence before the Court is this final evaluation, the Court is not aware of any medical specials other than the $3,160 incurred for medical treatment.

The Court does have a concern about the potential need for future medical care based on the finding in the report that: “[t]he nature of the long term changes and probability of re-injury all lead to the conclusion that the settlement of this case should allow for the provision of future medical care to include physiotheraphy and chiropractic treatments.” (Id., p.5.) The report states further that “the above-mentioned accident will predispose the patient to further periodical aggravation of the stretched muscles and ligaments over the involved areas that, otherwise, would be asymptomatic. These remissions and exacerbations may require a repeated course of physiotheraphy in the future.” (Id., p. 6.)

However, there is no evidence before the Court to suggest that Plaintiff in fact has sought medical care over the last 10 months or that she has had any recurring pain or continuing injuries.

Legal Standard

The standard for determining whether a matter should be reclassified for failing to meet the jurisdictional threshold for the amount of recovery is not whether damages “realistically” will exceed the threshold, but rather whether it is “possible” that the damages will exceed this jurisdictional limit. (See 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.”); see also Walker v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 270 (“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.”

In this case, Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion, and has presented no evidence that she has incurred any additional medical expenses or that she believes that general damages would bring the total recovery in this case above $25,000. Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

DATED: September 4, 2014

_________________________
Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer
Judge of the Superior Court