Case Number: PC053844    Hearing Date: July 17, 2014    Dept: 92

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – CENTRAL DISTRICT

BUNNAM SREPHICHET,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

EFREN BAIIENTOSVERA, et al.
Defendant(s).

Case No.: PC053844

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION FROM UNLIMITED TO LIMITED JURISDICTION COURT

Dept. 92
1:30 p.m. — #20
July 17, 2014

Defendant, Sally Ivankovich’s Motion to Transfer Action from Unlimited to Limited Jurisdiction Court is Denied.

1. Facts
Plaintiff, Bunnam Srephichet filed this action against Defendants, Efren Barrientosvera, Sally Ivankovich, and Eagle Foods, Inc. for damages arising out of an automobile accident.

2. Motion to Transfer
a. Initial Notes
Plaintiff timely filed his opposition to this motion on 6/30/14. Any reply to the opposition was due on or before 7/10/14. As of 7/14/14, the Court has not received any reply papers. The Court will not consider any late-filed reply papers.

Both parties’ papers fail to comply with CRC 3.1110(f), which requires exhibits to be tabbed. The Court requests that the parties comply with all Rules of Court in the future in connection with this action.

b. Parties’ Positions
Defendant, Ivankovich moves to transfer this action from unlimited to limited jurisdiction court, contending Plaintiff will not recover damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit in this case. Defendant argues Plaintiff’s medical bills are in the amount of $5075, and Plaintiff’s condition is stationary such that no further treatment is necessary. Defendant contends no loss of earnings claim is being made.

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing that pain and suffering damages could render the value of this case in excess of $25,000. Plaintiff also indicates he has ongoing pain as a result of the accident, and may require future medical care. Additionally, Plaintiff argues Defendant should have filed the motion earlier, if at all, and Plaintiff will be prejudiced if the motion is granted at this time.

c. Analysis
The Walker court delineated the standard for ordering a case transferred pursuant to CCP §396, holding that a matter may be transferred when: (1) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (2) 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 the transfer. (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262.) Even more appropriately, the test is whether lack of jurisdiction is clear or virtually unattainable. (Id., at p. 269.) This standard involves an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the merits of the claim, and requires a “high level of certainty that [the] damage award will not exceed $25,000.” (Id.) 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. (Id., at p. 270.)

In deciding whether a matter should be transferred a trial court must look beyond the pleadings but not so far as to trespass into the province of the trier of fact (e.g., pain and suffering are not subject to precise measurement by any scale, and their translation into money damages is peculiarly the function of the trier of the facts). (Walker, supra; Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401.)

In this case, pain and suffering it at issue. Future medicals appear to also be at issue. This court therefore cannot find, as a matter of law, that the case will render a verdict below $25,000. The motion to transfer the case to limited jurisdiction court is therefore denied.

Dated this 17th day of July, 2014

Hon. Elia Weinbach
Judge of the Superior Court