Case Number: BC582591 Hearing Date: January 17, 2018 Dept: 97

26

emily m. gitova,

Plaintiff,

v.

jessica lynn lawson, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: BC582591

Consolidated with Case No. BC582633

Hearing Date: January 17, 2018

[TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion to reclassify action to limited jurisdiction

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a multi-vehicle collision that occurred on May 24, 2013. Plaintiff Emily Gitova (“Gitova”) and Irene Achola (“Achola”) were in one vehicle, and were allegedly injured when struck by Defendant Jessica Lawson’s (“Lawson”) vehicle. Gitova filed an action in BC582591, against Lawson, Achola, Michal D. Green, and Pei Hua Wang. Achola filed a separate action in BC582633, against Lawson. The actions have been related and consolidated. Trial is set for February 16, 2018.

Lawson moves to reclassify this consolidated case to limited jurisdiction. Under case number BC582591, Achola, through counsel Veatch Carlson, LLP, filed a notice of joinder of Lawson’s motion. Under case number BC582633, Achola, through counsel Girma H. Gebriel, filed an opposition to the motion. Gitova also filed an opposition to the motion (under case number BC582633).

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP §86 defines a limited civil case as a case at law in which the demand, exclusive of interest, amounts to $25,000 or less. (CCP §86(a)(1).) “[T]he standard for reclassification from ‘unlimited’ to ‘limited’ is whether the matter will ‘necessarily result in a verdict below the superior court [in an unlimited case] 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.” (Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 272 [quoting from Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal 3d 257].)

A motion to reclassify may be filed by a plaintiff within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. (CCP §403.040(a).) A defendant may file such a motion within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading. (Id.) The court, on its own motion, may reclassify at any time. (Id.) If a party files a motion after such periods, the court shall grant the motion and enter an order for reclassification only if both condition are satisfied: (1) the case is incorrectly classified; and (2) the moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier. (CCP §403.040(b).)

DISCUSSION

Lawson moves to reclassify the unlimited consolidated case of BC582591 (Gitova v. Lawson, et al.) and BC582633 (Achola v. Lawson) to a limited jurisdiction case and court. Lawson argues that Gitova’s medical specials amount to $4,753.74 (for treatment she received over 4 years ago), and that she has a loss of earnings claim for only $288.00. (Mot., Exs. B-C, Form Interrogatory Nos. 6.4, 8.1, 8.6-8.7.) As for Achola, Lawson argues that Achola’s medical specials amount to $3,391.48 (for treatment she received over 4 years ago), does not claim loss of earnings, and seeks reimbursement for towing and storage charges in the amount of $646.00. (Mot., Ex. D, Form Interrogatory No. 6.2-6.4, 8.1, Ex. E.) Thus, Lawson argues this is less than the $25,000 jurisdictional limit for limited cases.

In their oppositions, Gitova and Achola argue that the cases should not be reclassified because they are seeking pain and suffering damages. (Capelouto v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1972) 7 Cal.3d 889.) Gitova argues she is still experiencing back pain even 4 years after the accident, and that she should be compensated for her pain and suffering. Achola too argues that she is still experiencing pain in her back and neck, continues to take painkillers, and testified that she still has memories of the accident. (Achola’s Opp., Ex. A [Achola’s 10/23/17 Depo. at 103-105, 112:20-23].) Both claim to have become frightened drivers following the incident. As Gitova and Achola seek general damages from Defendants in addition to special damages, it cannot yet be determined if this consolidated case will “necessarily” result in a verdict below the jurisdictional amount and that Lawson has failed to consider these damages.

The Court finds that the evidence presented by Lawson does not demonstrate that a verdict within the jurisdictional limit is “virtually unattainable,” i.e., “it appears to a legal certainty that plaintiff cannot recover the amount [of the] demand [].” (Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 276.) The Court finds that based on Gitova and Achola’s current medical expenses and their possible general damages, it does not appear to a legal certainty that they cannot recover in excess of $25,000.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The motion to reclassify is denied.

Lawson is ordered to provide notice of this order.