Plaintiff?Hyundai Capital America?s?Motion to Reclassify Action from Limited to Unlimited Jurisdiction?is GRANTED.??Plaintiff to pay the reclassification fee?pursuant to?CCP ? 403.040(c)(1) within twenty (20) days. The Court sets an OSC re: Payment of Reclassification Fee on August 10, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 94.
On December 8, 2017, Plaintiff Hyundai Capital America (?Plaintiff?) filed this action against Defendants Joaquin Valencia (?Valencia?) and California Department of Motor Vehicles, Director of the Department of Motor Vehicles for (1) breach of written agreement and (2) injunctive relief.
On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reclassify Action from Limited to Unlimited Jurisdiction (the ?Motion?).
Legal Standard
CCP ? 403.040 provides in relevant part:
?(a)?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.
(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:
- The?case is incorrectly classified.
(2)?The moving party shows good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier.?
The appropriate standard for determining whether a matter must?be reclassified?for failing to meet the jurisdictional threshold for the amount of recovery is not whether damages ?realistically? will exceed the threshold, but rather whether it is possible that the damages will.??(See 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.?].)
The plaintiff must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that the damages will exceed $25,000, then the trial court must review the record to determine ?whether a judgment?in excess of?$25,000 is obtainable.???(Id.)
Discussion
- Timeliness
Plaintiff filed this Motion on May 11, 2018, well after the time to amend its Complaint, which was filed on December 8, 2017.??(SeeCCP ? 472.)??Thus, Plaintiff must demonstrate ?good cause for not seeking reclassification earlier??in order?to obtain an order forreclassification.??(CCP ? 403.040(b).)
Default?was entered?against?Valencia on March 28, 2018.??Plaintiff?submitted an application for?default judgment against Valencia, but it?was rejected?on May 1,?2018?because this Court, as a limited jurisdiction court, does not have the jurisdiction to enter permanent injunctive relief as?judgment?against Valencia.??(See 5/1/18 Notice of Rejection.)??Accordingly, Plaintiff brought this Motion ten days after the rejection, seeking to reclassify this matter.??It appears that Plaintiff did not know that this Court cannot enter judgment for permanent injunctive relief.??(See Tiberi Decl.????6-8.)??Based on the?foregoing?facts, the Court finds that Plaintiff has shown good cause for not bringing the instant Motion earlier.
- ?????????Merits
?[A] plaintiff in a limited civil action may not obtain a permanent injunction and has fewer rights for declaratory relief than a litigant in an unlimited case.???(Ytuarte v. Superior Court?(2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 275.)??This Court, therefore, lacks the jurisdiction to issue permanent injunctive relief.??(See CCP ?? 86(a)(8), 86(b), 88.)??The Complaint requests permanent injunctive relief, and in its application for default judgment, Plaintiff seeks permanent injunctive relief against Valencia.??This action, therefore, should?be reclassified?to unlimited jurisdiction court so Plaintiff may obtain permanent injunctive relief.
For the?foregoing?reasons,?the Motion?is GRANTED.??Plaintiff to pay the reclassification fee?pursuant to?CCP ? 403.040(c)(1) within twenty (20) days. The Court sets an OSC re: Payment of Reclassification Fee on August 10, 2018, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 94.??All other future court dates and the trial date is this case are advanced and vacated.
Moving party to give notice.