Williams v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 28 March 1990
• Docket Number: No. B047533,B047533
• Citation: 268 Cal.Rptr. 61,219 Cal.App.3d 171
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Stephanie WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; GEMCO/LUCKY STORES, INC., Real Party in Interest.

Page 61

268 Cal.Rptr. 61

219 Cal.App.3d 171

Stephanie WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent;

GEMCO/LUCKY STORES, INC., Real Party in Interest.

No. B047533.

Court of Appeal, Second District, Division 3, California.

March 28, 1990.

As Modified April 23, 1990.

Law Offices of Steve Mazin and Steve Mazin, Hollywood, for petitioner.

No appearance, for respondent.

No appearance, for real party in interest.

BY THE COURT: ^*

Williams, the plaintiff in a slip and fall accident, is petitioning for a writ directing the respondent court to vacate its order transferring the case to the municipal court based on the amount in controversy. ¹

The issues are (1) whether the superior court has discretion to transfer a case to the municipal court upon a determination the plaintiff cannot obtain a judgment in excess of $25,000, the jurisdictional minimum of the superior court, and if so, the permissible scope of such transfer; and (2) whether the superior court abused its discretion in ordering a transfer under the specific circumstances present here.

We hold that the superior court has discretion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396 ² to transfer a case to the municipal court. Such a transfer requires a hearing to be conducted. The trial court must be thoroughly familiar with the case and have evaluated the allegations in the pleadings, including the amount in the prayer of the complaint. Also to be considered are any assessments made in any settlement conference and the value of the case as determined through any arbitration proceedings.

We find the transfer to the municipal court in this case was an abuse of discretion and grant the peremptory writ.

BACKGROUND

The action was originally filed in municipal court but was transferred to superior court following the filing of the first amended complaint, which added an allegation that Williams' damages exceeded the jurisdictional limits of the municipal court. The matter was submitted to arbitration with an award of $17,000 entered in favor of Williams.

After Williams filed a request for trial de novo, defendant Gemco/Lucky Stores (Lucky) requested Williams's psychiatric records. When Williams refused the request, Lucky filed a motion to compel production. Shortly before the hearing on the discovery motion the parties resolved the discovery dispute.

Counsel for Williams did not appear at the hearing because Lucky's counsel had agreed to appear to request the motion be taken off calendar. The respondent trial court denied the request to take the matter off calendar and entered an order granting the motion to produce psychiatric records on the ground Williams's claim for lost wages was based in part upon her psychiatric disability. ³

On its own motion the trial court then transferred the action to municipal court solely because the amount of the arbitration award was less than the jurisdictional limit of the superior court. On September 27, 1989, Williams's motion for reconsideration was heard, which motion was not opposed by Lucky. The trial court took the matter under submission.

On December 29, 1989, the trial court issued an order denying the motion to reconsider, holding: "Regardless of the alleged wage loss of $44,000.00, which amount exceeds the jurisdiction of the municipal court, an arbitration award of $17,000.00 constitutes a prior determination of an amount less than the jurisdictional limit This petition followed.

of the superior court; [Campbell v. [219 Cal.App.3d 175] Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 147, 261 Cal.Rptr. 509 (rev. den. Dec. 14, 1989) ]."

DISCUSSION

A. Authority to Transfer

The power to order transfer is provided in section 396 which, in pertinent part, provides: "If an action or proceeding is commenced in a court which lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof, as determined by the complaint or petition, if there is a court of this state which has such jurisdiction, the action ... shall, on the application of either party, or on the court's own motion, be transferred to a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter which may be agreed upon by the parties, or, if they do not agree, to a court having such jurisdiction which is designated by law as a proper court for the trial or determination thereof, and it shall thereupon be entered and prosecuted in the court to which it is transferred as if it had been commenced therein, all prior proceedings being saved.... [p] If an action or proceeding is commenced in or transferred to a court which has jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof as determined by the complaint or petition, and it thereafter appears from the verified pleadings, or at the trial, or hearing, that the determination of the action or proceeding, or of a cross-complaint, will necessarily involve the determination of questions not within the jurisdiction of the court, in which the action or proceeding is pending, the court, whenever such lack of jurisdiction appears, must suspend all further proceedings therein and transfer the action or proceeding and certify the pleadings (or if the pleadings be oral, a transcript of the same), and all papers and proceedings therein to a court having jurisdiction thereof which may be agreed upon by the parties, or, if they do not agree, to a court having such jurisdiction which is designated by law as a proper court for the trial or determination thereof."

A transfer must be made only when the lack of jurisdiction ⁴ is clear on the face of the record before the court because the transfer deprives the plaintiff from attempting to prove damages greater than those available in the municipal court. (Davis v. Superior Court (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 596, 600-601, 102 Cal.Rptr. 238.)

In determining whether transfer to the municipal court should be ordered, the superior court may not "arbitrarily" disregard the prayer of the complaint, but may examine the subject matter of the complaint as a whole. (Id. at p. 599, 102 Cal.Rptr. 238.) The statute provides for transfer even though the parties "do not agree" ⁵ whenever an evaluation of the facts of the case based upon the allegations in the complaint, the damages alleged in the prayer, and evidence offered at a hearing reveal that the court is without jurisdiction to hear the matter. (Stratton v. Superior Court (1935) 2 Cal.2d 693, 698, 43 P.2d 539; Campbell v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 147, 151, 261 Cal.Rptr. 509.)

B. The Campbell Case

In making the order to transfer this case to municipal court, the trial court herein cited Campbell v. Superior Court, supra, 213 Cal.App.3d 147, 261 Cal.Rptr. 509, as holding an arbitration award "constitutes a prior determination" of the amount in controversy. The Campbell court made no such holding.

In Campbell, the plaintiff did not request special damages for medical treatment or wage loss, but sought $1 million in general and special damages for " 'humiliation, mental anguish [and] emotional and physical distress' " arising from an accusation of shoplifting by security guards at a food store. (213 Cal.App.3d at p. 149, 261 Cal.Rptr. 509.) The arbitration award in Campbell was $1,400.

In Campbell, "the trial court did not order transfer ... by mechanically applying an arbitrator's award as the exclusive measure of court damages." (213 Cal.App.3d at p. 153, 261 Cal.Rptr. 509.) Instead, the trial court was "personally familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case, having been personally involved in settlement negotiations. We may accordingly assume the trial judge's familiarity went well beyond the bare allegations of the complaint to the actual facts and the actual damages suffered. In addition ..., the trial judge had the benefit of three separate evaluations of the case: the arbitration award and settlement proceedings before two different judges." (Ibid.)

Based upon an evaluation of these relevant factors, the trial court in Campbell determined the action necessarily involved an amount less than the jurisdictional minimum of the superior court and ordered the transfer to municipal court pursuant to the power vested in that court by section 396. In upholding the transfer, the Campbell court referred to the "absence of economic harm and either physical or emotional injury requiring treatment," holding that based on such facts, the order transferring the case to the municipal court was not an abuse of discretion. (213 Cal.App.3d at p. 154, 261 Cal.Rptr. 509.) In so holding, Campbell cautioned that transfer should be ordered only after a thorough review of the facts and only in the clearest of circumstances. (213 Cal.App.3d at p. 155, 261 Cal.Rptr. 509.)

C. The Williams Case

Williams v. Superior Court (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 378, 264 Cal.Rptr. 677, agreed with the rationale of Campbell, holding the trial court engaged in the settlement did not abuse its discretion by transferring the case to the municipal court. The trial court was fully informed of all aspects of the case. It had considered the pleadings and settlement briefs, the arbitration award, which had been in an amount less than the jurisdictional limit of the superior court, and had handled the case through two unsuccessful settlement conferences. (Id. at p. 384, 264 Cal.Rptr. 677.) The trial court also considered whether plaintiff would be able to prove the alleged contract of employment and the term of the contract. Further, it was aware that no tort damages could be recovered. (Id. at pp. 385-387, 264 Cal.Rptr. 677.)

Williams rejected the concept a trial court is without discretion to evaluate the facts of the case and to determine a judgment greater than the jurisdictional minimum can not be obtained. (Id. at p. 385, 264 Cal.Rptr. 677.) ⁶ "[A] weighing of pertinent factors by an informed trial judge [is] entirely consistent with the discretion authorized by section 396." (216 Cal.App.3d at p. 386, 264 Cal.Rptr. 677.)

Williams reaffirmed the caution that...