What is a Motion to Reclassify?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Reclassify

Recent Rulings on Motion to Reclassify

TAULER SMITH LLP VS JOSEPH VALERIO, ET AL.

On March 27, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion to Reclassify the Action to a Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction. On June 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel Further Responses to Requests for Admission, Requests for Production of Documents, Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories; Request for Sanctions. On August 31, 2020, the Court denied the Motion to Reclassify. Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion to Compel Further on September 8, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

4425 MAPLEWOOD LLC, VS JESSE PIMENTEL, ET AL.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY (CCP § 403.040) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff 4425 Maplewood, LLC’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is GRANTED. THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT AND PAYMENT OF RECLASSIFICATION FEES.

  • Hearing

    Sep 22, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HORACE WILLIAMS JR. ET AL. VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING ET AL.

The Court accordingly continued the matters to be heard on August 28, 2020, this date, and also set a Hearing on Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion) for hearing. There have been no moving papers filed in support of a Motion to Reclassify.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

AVERY SMITH VS EL PUENTE AUTO CARE & MUFFLER CENTER, INC.

In ruling on a motion to reclassify, the Court may not properly “trespass into the province of the trier of fact” and in particular, “pain and suffering are not subject to precise measurement by any scale and their translation into money damages is peculiarly the function of the trier of facts.” (Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to reclassify the action is DENIED. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

A TO Z TEXTILES, INC. VS FABRIQUE INNOVATIONS, INC.

Defendant / Cross-Complainant Fabrique Innovations, Inc.’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAVID WANG VS FOOT LOCKER REAIL, INC, ET AL.

On August 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Reclassify the Action to a Court of Unlimited Jurisdiction. On August 27, 2019, Defendant Foot Locker Retail removed the action to federal court and the hearing dates were vacated; the case was remanded on October 28, 2019. On November 6, 2019, Plaintiff again filed a Motion to Reclassify, then filed an Amended Motion to Reclassify on March 3, 2020. Defendant Foot Locker Retail filed an opposition on March 30, 2020 and Plaintiff replied on April 6, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

POLYN SPIRTOS VS BOGARDUS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION

Accordingly, the court denies Association’s motion to reclassify.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SHAHROUZ JAHANSHAHI VS RODNEY T LEWIN

On August 15, 2018, the Court granted Cross-Complainant’s motion to reclassify the case from unlimited to limited jurisdiction. (8/15/18 Minute Order.) Cross-Defendant filed the instant Motion to Quash Deposition Subpoena Deuces Tecum and Request for Sanctions (the “Motion to Quash”) on December 2, 2019. On May 20, 2020, Cross-Complainant filed an Opposition and on May 26, 2020, Cross-Defendant filed a Reply.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, AN INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS JOEL IVAN VERA

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY (CCP § 403.040) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is GRANTED. THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB, AN INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE VS JOEL IVAN VERA

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY (CCP § 403.040) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is GRANTED. THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

TAULER SMITH LLP VS JOSEPH VALERIO, ET AL.

Discussion Whether due to inadvertence, error, or otherwise, no memorandum of points and authorities, nor any supporting declaration was filed with the Notice of Motion to Reclassify. Therefore, the Court cannot make a ruling on the Motion to Reclassify at this time. The hearing on the Motion to Reclassify is CONTINUED TO NOVEMBER 2, 2020 AT 9 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2020

HORACE WILLIAMS JR. ET AL. VS OCWEN LOAN SERVICING ET AL.

The Court in addition to the above orders, notes that the matter is on calendar for a Motion to Reclassify (Walker Motion), but that no papers have been filed in support of such a motion. The motion is accordingly NOT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT. This ruling is without prejudice to the filing of a noticed motion to reclassify.

  • Hearing

    Aug 28, 2020

YANETT ARLENE ENRIQUEZ VS CHARLES MICHAEL HELDEBRANT

On November 26, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to reclassify the action to a court of unlimited jurisdiction. To the extent Plaintiff reserved a hearing for a second motion to reclassify, the hearing is placed off calendar. No second motion to reclassify has been filed. On February 13, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Quash Subpoena and Request for Sanctions (“the Motion”). Defendant filed an opposition on May 19, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Aug 26, 2020

VICKY MITCHELL VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY (CCP § 403.040) TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Vicky Mitchell’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is GRANTED. THIS CASE IS RECLASSIFIED AS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE AND TRANSFERRED TO THE RECLASSIFICATION/TRANSFER DESK FOR COLLECTION OF FEES AND REASSIGNMENT OF THE CASE TO AN INDEPENDENT CALENDAR COURT. PLAINTIFF TO PAY THE RECLASSIFICATION FEE WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS.

  • Hearing

    Aug 17, 2020

VARTAN BABURIAN VS GRILL CONCEPTS, INC.

The Motion to Reclassify this Action from the Unlimited Jurisdiction Court to the Limited Jurisdiction Court Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 396 filed by Defendant Grill Concepts, Inc. is DENIED. Defendant has not established to a legal certainty that plaintiff cannot recover $25,000. (Maldonado v. Superior Court (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 397, 401.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 07, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Salinas’ Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is DENIED. Court clerk to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Aug 05, 2020

DOMINIQUE LAPAGE VS LAUREN WOLF

On July 26, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the first Motion to Reclassify. Following a failure to demonstrate proper notice, the Court placed the First Motion to Reclassify off calendar on December 2, 2019. On December 6, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the second Motion to Reclassify, which is currently set for hearing on August 3, 2020. To date, no opposition has been filed.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

A TO Z TEXTILES, INC. VS FABRIQUE INNOVATIONS, INC.

MOTION TO RECLASSIFY ACTION TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant / Cross-Complainant Fabrique Innovations, Inc.’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Unlimited is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. ANALYSIS: On July 16, 2018, Plaintiff A to Z Textiles, Inc. (“Plaintiff / Cross-Defendant”) filed this action against Defendant Fabrique Innovations, Inc. (“Defendant / Cross-Complainant”) for breach of contract and related claims.

  • Hearing

    Aug 03, 2020

GABRIEL HERRERA VS ANDREA THOMPSON

Thompson 18STCV09748 Defendant’s Motion to Reclassify Action as Limited Jurisdiction is DENIED. Defendant has not established that the case is incorrectly classified. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(b). The court may transfer to limited jurisdiction if “it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the superior court jurisdictional amount.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1992) 53 Cal. 3d 257, 262.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 28, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BOURDASE V. COUNTY OF FRESNO

Motion: By Court, On Its Own Motion, to Reclassify Case Tentative Ruling: To grant the motion to reclassify the case as a small claims matter. (Civ. Code. §§ 116.220(a)(1), 116.221; Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(a).) Explanation: The court previously sustained the County’s demurrer to plaintiff’s claims for racial, religious, and political discrimination, without leave to amend. (See Court’s Order of July 8, 2020.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2020

MARSHA A. JOHNSON VS BOARD OF REGISTERED NURSES

Motion to Reclassify Defendant moves to reclassify this matter from limited to unlimited jurisdiction based on the requested relief. Despite Plaintiff’s identification of this action as a limited civil action, the action is currently classified as an unlimited civil action based on the relief sought. Therefore, Defendant Board of Registered Nursing’s Motion to Reclassify Matter from Limited to Unlimited Jurisdiction is DENIED, as MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2020

ANTONIO CABRAL, ET AL. VS CARLOS M QUINTANA

Rice (1) Motion to Reclassify from Unlimited to Limited Jurisdiction Moving Party: Defendant Carlos Quintana Responding Party: Plaintiffs Antonio Cabral and Patricia Cabral Ruling: The motion to reclassify is denied. Section 403.040 of the Code of Civil Procedure governs motions for reclassification. A defendant may file a motion for reclassification within the time allowed for that party to respond to the initial pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 403.040, subd. (a).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 24, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

WALSH V. LAGUNA WOODS VILLAGE

The defendant filed its answer on December 6, 2019, but only submitted the motion to reclassify on March 18, 2020; and, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and administrative orders of the court, the motion was not filed until May 26, 2020. The defendant filed a renewed motion to reclassify on May 29, 2020. The court finds the case was incorrectly classified as it will necessarily result in a verdict below the jurisdictional amount of the unlimited court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 23, 2020

VIVERA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. VS ROBERT C BLAINE, ET AL.

.; (2) MOTION TO RECLASSIFY CASE [EDALAT] AS COMPLEX PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT 3.400 ET SEQ.; (3) FRED BATTAH, JM LOGISTICAL SERVICES AND REAL VALUE PRODUCTS CORPORATION’S JOINDER IN DR. ROBERT C. BLAINE, ET AL.’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE RELATED CASES AND MOTION TO DESIGNATE THE VIVERA CASE AS COMPLEX MOVING PARTY: (1) Dr. Robert C.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

SHIRLEY HANSING VS WALMART

Defendant's motion to reclassify unlimited civil case is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff shall produce current photographs of her injury to the Court within 10 days of the date of this ruling. Defendant's request for a protective order is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 27     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.