KANDOLA vs PUBLIC STORAGE OPERATING COMPANY

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 403.040[1], Defendant moves to reclassify this case to small claims or, alternatively, to a limited civil because on its face the FAC demands a total of $9,999 in damages.

Plaintiff opposes the motion. Plaintiff is admonished for failing to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(c) which requires pagination of documents, and CRC Rule 2.108(4) which requires that line numbers must be placed on the left margin of a page.

25CV013473: KANDOLA vs PUBLIC STORAGE OPERATING COMPANY 02/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reclassify Unlimited Civil Case to Small Claims Case, or in the Alternatively to Limited Civil Case in Department 54

Section 403.040(a)-(b) provides, in relevant part:

a) . . . 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. . . . 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.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(a)-(b).)

A motion to reclassify an unlimited case to a limited case may only be granted where the court determines that a recovery in excess of $35,000 “could not be obtained” or is “virtually unobtainable.” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 269-270.) “Under the Walker standard a matter may be reclassified as a limited civil action ‘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’s jurisdictional amount.’” (Ytuarte v.

Superior Court (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 266, 276.) Further, “‘[t]he [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.’” (Id. at 277, quoting Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 270.) “This standard involves an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the merits of the claim...” (Id.)

Reclassification from unlimited to limited is only appropriate where for example “during pretrial litigation, it becomes clear that the matter will ‘necessarily’ result in a verdict below the jurisdictional amount.” (Stern v. Superior Court (2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 223, 230-231.) The court’s decision on a reclassification motion is reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. (Id. at 272.) “This standard involves an evaluation of the amount fairly in controversy, not an adjudication of the merits of the claim, and according to Walker, requires a ‘high level of certainty that [the] damage award will not exceed $[3]5,000.’” (Ytuarte, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at 284.) The party opposing the motion “must present evidence to demonstrate a possibility that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013473: KANDOLA vs PUBLIC STORAGE OPERATING COMPANY 02/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reclassify Unlimited Civil Case to Small Claims Case, or in the Alternatively to Limited Civil Case in Department 54

the verdict will exceed $[3]5,000.” (Id. at 277 (emphasis in original).)

As an initial matter, Defendant’s request to reclassify the case to small claims case is DENIED. Defendant provides no legal authority allowing the reclassification of a case to the small claims court. Section 403.040 does not permit the Court to reclassify an action as a small claims action.

With respect to reclassification to limited civil, Plaintiff concedes that the amount in controversy is less than $25,000. Plaintiff argues that the case should remain in unlimited civil because: (1) she seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, (2) reclassifying the case would limit her rights to discovery, (3) and “California Code of Civil Procedure § 403.040 allows a matter to remain in Unlimited Civil when the issues are complex or involve significant questions of law or equity.” (Opposition, p. 3.) Plaintiff, however, fails to provide any legal authority to support her argument that the Court should consider anything other than the amount in controversy. Additionally, Section 403.040 makes no reference to the “complexity” or “significant questions of law or equity” in reclassifying a case from unlimited civil to limited civil.

Accordingly, the motion to reclassify from unlimited civil to limited civil is GRANTED.

The clerk shall reclassify this matter as a limited civil action. No reclassification fee is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.040(c)(2).)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Moving counsel’s notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact Plaintiff and advise Plaintiff of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact Plaintiff prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

[1] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV013473: KANDOLA vs PUBLIC STORAGE OPERATING COMPANY 02/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Reclassify Unlimited Civil Case to Small Claims Case, or in the Alternatively to Limited Civil Case in Department 54

hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.