Case Number: BC671940 Hearing Date: January 16, 2018 Dept: 93

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Lt. Tom Cullen, Chief Robert T. Guthrie, and Mayor Peter Armudson

RESPONDING PARTY: None

Motion to Transfer Case to Limited Jurisdiction Court

The court considered the moving papers.

BACKGROUND

On August 10, 2017, plaintiff Hisham Moustapha Miloud (self-represented) filed a complaint.

On October 10, 2017, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.

LEGAL STANDARD

Actions in which the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less are classified as limited jurisdiction cases. CCP § 86(a)(1). CCP § 403.040 provides, in relevant part:

“(a) The plaintiff . . . may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to amend the initial pleading. The defendant . . . may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading. . . . 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.

(b) 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.”

“[W]e shall construe section 396 as requiring transfer when (i) the absence of jurisdiction is apparent before trial from the complaint, petition, or related documents, or (ii) 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 transfer.” Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 262. “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.’” Id. at 269. “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[].” Ytuarte v. Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal. App. 4th 266, 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.”).

DISCUSSION

Defendants request that the court reclassify this case as one of limited jurisdiction, pursuant to CCP § 403.040.

Defendants argue that the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000. Defendants explain that the subject litigation arises out of the towing of plaintiff’s vehicle, a 1992 Q45 Infinity, on May 8, 2016. The vehicle was towed because of expired registration.

Plaintiff alleges in the FAC that he suffered loss of use of property and he prays for $5,900 plus court fees of $2,300. The court notes that plaintiff’s fees were waived.

The court finds that a verdict over $25,000 is virtually unattainable. The court has a high level of certainty that a damage award will not exceed $25,000.

The motion to reclassify action as a limited civil case is therefore GRANTED.

Defendants are ordered to pay the reclassification fee.

Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 16, 2018

_____________________________

Dennis J. Landin

Judge of the Superior Court