Case Number: EC061912    Hearing Date: September 02, 2014    Dept: NCD

Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify Action to Limited Jurisdiction

TENTATIVE:
Motion is DENIED. The case is not incorrectly classified. Based on the evidence presented it is not clear that the verdict in this case would necessarily result in a verdict below this court’s jurisdictional amount. See Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 262: Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 397, 401-402 (“[t]he 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;” and “the trial court looks to the possibility of a jurisdictionally appropriate verdict, not to its probability.”).

SUMMARY OF FACTS:
Plaintiff Marcie J. Evans alleges that defendant Anthony Wade Evans, her ex-husband, and Defendant Wheels Financial Group entered into a loan agreement secured by plaintiff’s vehicle, and that defendants conspired to defraud plaintiff by allowing an unknown female to impersonate plaintiff and purport to co-sign defendant Evans’ loan. Defendant Evans defaulted on the loan agreement and defendant Wheels seized the vehicle and demanded that plaintiff pay the balance due. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of defendants’ conduct, she lost her vehicle and the use of her vehicle, and also lost wages because she was unable to obtain transportation to her employment. Plaintiff also alleges that she suffered severe emotional distress because she was unable to participate in shared custody of her daughter due to lack of reliable transportation.

Defendant Evans filed a demurrer and motion to strike in response to the original complaint, which were taken off calendar upon the filing of the First Amended Complaint.

Defendant Wheels then filed a demurrer to the First Amended Complaint which was heard on July 18, 2014. The demurrer was sustained with leave to amend as to the fraud and negligence causes of action, and overruled as to the conversion and declaratory relief causes of action. An amended pleading was ordered to be filed by September 15, 2014, and has not yet been filed.

Here, defendant requests that the court take judicial notice of plaintiff’s bankruptcy schedules, in which she valued this civil lawsuit at $10,000. [Ex. A]. She also valued the vehicle in her schedule at a current value of $12,000. [Ex. B]. Defendant also indicates that at hearings in this matter, plaintiff’s counsel has agreed with the court that the value of this case is between $10,000 and $15,000.

If plaintiff’s counsel in fact agrees that the maximum value of this case is $15,000, the court encourages the parties to stipulate to reclassify to limited jurisdiction.

However, if plaintiff’s counsel is unwilling to stipulate, defendant has brought this motion after the time to respond to the initial complaint (filed on December 18, 2013, personally served January 3, 2014), and the moving papers fail to establish that the matter is not correctly classified, and also fail to establish “good cause” for not seeking reclassification earlier.

The FAC, which may be superseded by a Second Amended Complaint, but for now is the operative pleading, states a cause of action for conversion, and seeks punitive damages, as well as loss of earnings and emotional distress damages. Accordingly, regardless of the low value of the vehicle itself, it is not clear that plaintiff’s total damages from the claims alleged will necessarily be less than $25,000. The repossession of the vehicle may have caused plaintiff to lose earnings.

Given these circumstance, there is no “high level of certainty that a damage award will not exceed $25,000″ in this case. The motion is denied.