Case Number: BC674461 Hearing Date: November 28, 2018 Dept: J

Re: Rebecca Bonilla v. San Gabriel Valley Towing, et al. (BC674461)

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CIVIL CASE FROM UNLIMITED TO LIMITED JURISDICTION

Moving Party: Defendant San Gabriel Valley Towing

Respondent: Plaintiff Rebecca Bonilla

POS: Moving—OK[1]; Opposing OK; reply filed 11/12/18 but no method of service specified on POS

Plaintiff alleges that on or about 4/10/17, Defendant San Gabriel Valley Towing’s (Towing”) tow truck collided with her vehicle, causing her property damage and bodily injury. Plaintiff claims that defendants convinced her not to report the accident to the police or her insurance carrier, and promised to fix her vehicle at no charge to her, but then failed to fix her vehicle. The complaint, filed 8/31/17, asserts causes of action against Defendants Towing, “E. Doe,” “Tony Doe” and Does 1-20 for:

Negligence
Negligent Misrepresentation
Intentional Misrepresentation/False Promise
Conspiracy

On 7/11/18, this action was transferred from the personal injury hub (Department 2) to this department. On 9/19/18, the court granted Towing’s motion to strike punitive damages.

A Trial Setting Conference is set for 11/28/18.

Defendant San Gabriel Valley Towing (“defendant”) moves the court for an order reclassifying this action from an unlimited civil case to a limited civil case, on the basis that discovery has shown that a recovery greater than $25,000.00 cannot be obtained.

“The plaintiff, cross-complainant, or petitioner may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. The defendant or cross-defendant may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading. The court, on its own motion, may reclassify a case at any time. A motion for reclassification does not extend the moving party’s time to amend or answer or otherwise respond. The court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification, regardless of any fault or lack of fault, if the case has been classified in an incorrect jurisdictional classification.” CCP § 403.040(a). “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. (2) The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.” CCP § 403.040(b).

“[T]he standard for reclassification from ‘unlimited’ to ‘limited’ is whether the matter will ‘necessarily result in a verdict below the superior court minimal jurisdiction;’ and that the matter may not be reclassified as a ‘limited’ case unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that the plaintiff cannot recover more than $25,000.00.” Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 272 (quoting from Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257). “This standard requires a high level of certainty that a damage award will not exceed $25,000 and is not satisfied by a finding that such an award is merely ‘unlikely’ or ‘not reasonably probable.’” Walker, supra, at 269. “The 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[].” Ytuarte, supra, at 277 (citing Walker, supra, at 270; internal quotations omitted); see also 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”).

Defendant argues that this case should be reclassified on the basis that discovery has shown that a recovery greater than $25,000.00 cannot be obtained. Defendant states that plaintiff is alleging medical bills totaling $2,629.97 (i.e., comprised of $411.82 from Foothill Presbyterian Hospital and $2,218.15 from Chiropractic and Soft Tissue Center, plus additional unknown costs from Robert Magsino, M.D.), and loss of earnings totaling $3,140.00. (Hilgers Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. B, Nos. 6.4 and 8.7.) Plaintiff’s property damage claim for $799.05 has already been resolved through insurance. (Id. at 7.2.) Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim, moreover, has been eliminated.

Plaintiff, in opposition, asserts that the bill from Foothill Presbyterian Hospital is actually $4,282.07, as opposed to $411.82, which again is the amount plaintiff identified in her responses to written discovery. (See Carrico Decl., ¶ 1, Exh. A.) However, plaintiff’s Exhibit B is a Medi-Cal “Final Lien Amount” for $420.01, which appears to include all of the Foothill Presbyterian Hospital charges (as well as some miscellaneous additional charges from Drs. Edward Gentile, Scott Yochim and William Pfisterer and Wal-Mart). Since $420.01 is the “Final Lien Amount,” it is the amount that plaintiff is bound by. See Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 541. Plaintiff also limits the amount of the bill she anticipates receiving from Dr. Magsino to “up to $200.00.” Plaintiff’s special damages, then, total $5,969.97. There is no indication that plaintiff has undergone any additional treatment since 4/11/17. The court opines that if any further treatment were determined needed, plaintiff would have undergone that treatment by now.

The court will entertain argument from counsel. However, if the action remains in unlimited jurisdiction and the plaintiff fails to recover more than $25,000, cost of suit will be denied.

[1] The motion, filed 10/1/18, was originally set for hearing 11/29/18 under Court Reservation System (“CRS”) Number 180928352668. The proof of service accompanying the motion, executed 9/28/18, indicates that service was effectuated on that date; however, the method of service was not specified. On 10/2/18, the hearing was rescheduled to 11/28/18. On 10/5/18, moving party filed its “Notice of Change of Hearing Date of Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify Civil Case from Unlimited to Limited Jurisdiction;” it had been mail-served on 10/2/18.