Marie Hogue vs. Jason Sweeney
Nature of Proceeding:
Filed By:
Motion to Reclassify
Zyman, Stella H.

Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify Unlimited Action as Limited Action is DENIED.

In lieu of answering the complaint, Defendant moves to reclassify plaintiff’s action as a Limited Civil Action, pursuant to C.C.P., sec. 403.040(a). Defendant’s motion is based solely upon plaintiff’s service of a C.C.P., sec. 998 offer on Dec. 3, 2013, in an amount less than the jurisdictional limit. The 998 offer has not yet been accepted and filed with the Court, and if not accepted, will expire on Wed., Jan. 29, 2014.

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.)

Opposing party plaintiff cites Walker, at p. 271 for the proposition that trial courts should exercise caution to assure that information from settlement negotiations is not improperly divulged in the context of a hearing on a motion to reclassify. The policy reason behind the concern is plain: inappropriate disclosure might discourage plaintiffs from offering to settle below the superior court jurisdictional amount, out of fear that their offer might later be used to divest the superior court of jurisdiction.

In this action, the complaint alleges that as the result of the motor vehicle accident on July 19, 2012, and the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff MARIE HOGUE suffered personal / bodily injuries, resulting in economic and non-economic damages. Economic damages include, but are not limited to, (1) past and future medical and/or ancillary related expenses, (2) past and future income and/or earning capacity loss, (3) loss of ability to provide household services, and (4) incidental and consequential damages and/or property damage and loss of use. Non-economic damages include, but are not limited to (1) past and future physical and mental suffering, (2) loss of enjoyment of life, (3) physical impairment, (4) inconvenience, (5) anxiety, and (6) emotional distress. (Compl., para. 8)

There are strategic (and other) reasons whereby a 998 offer might be made under the circumstances presented here, unrelated to the potential value of the case. The mere making of a 998 offer does not satisfy the relevant standard (Walker, supra.)

On the record before the Court, it cannot determine that the action has been misclassified.

Defendant shall file and serve his responsive pleading not later than Thursday, Feb. 6, 2014.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.