Stern v. Superior Court
105 Cal. App. 4th 223, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 275, 2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 283 (2003)
Rule of Law:
A trial court may not reclassify a civil action as a 'limited civil case' or dismiss class action allegations without providing the parties with notice and an opportunity to present evidence, and reclassification is only appropriate if the court determines the verdict will necessarily fall below the jurisdictional amount.
Facts:
- Defendant Walheim was licensed as a Certified Public Accountant (C.P.A.) in 1980, but his license expired in April 1996 and remained invalid through November 2000.
- Despite lacking a valid license, Walheim continued to practice public accountancy as an employee of the defendant firm Getz, Krycler, & Jakubovits.
- The defendant firm and Walheim advertised and represented to the public that Walheim was a licensed C.P.A., violating state accountancy statutes.
- Plaintiffs Stem, Flig, Treskunova, and Goldner hired Walheim to perform accounting services believing he was a licensed C.P.A.
- Plaintiffs paid various fees to the defendants for these services, including specific amounts ranging from $125 to thousands of dollars.
- Plaintiffs did not discover that Walheim lacked a valid license until November 14, 2000.
- The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all clients for whom Walheim rendered services during the unlicensed period.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Superior Court alleging fraud, unfair business practices, and seeking class action certification.
- Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
- The parties attended an initial status conference at the Superior Court.
- At the conference, the trial court, on its own motion, ruled that the matter was not a class action.
- The trial court ordered the case reclassified as a 'limited civil case' on the grounds that plaintiffs had not shown they could recover more than the $25,000 jurisdictional limit.
- Plaintiffs filed an appeal from the reclassification order, which the appellate court treated as a petition for a writ of mandate.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by sua sponte reclassifying the plaintiffs' case as a limited civil action and striking class allegations without providing notice or an opportunity for the plaintiffs to contest the decision?
Opinions:
Majority - Kitching
Yes, the trial court abused its discretion by ordering reclassification and dismissing class claims without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The court held that despite changes to the California court system (unification of municipal and superior courts), the substantive law regarding jurisdiction remains unchanged. Under the precedent set in Walker v. Superior Court, a trial court must provide parties with notice and an opportunity to contest any proposed reclassification of a case. Furthermore, the court must find that a verdict below the jurisdictional amount of $25,000 is 'necessarily' the result, not just probable. In this instance, the trial court acted on its own motion during a status conference without warning. By failing to allow the plaintiffs to present evidence regarding the value of the class claims or the potential damages, the court lacked the necessary evidence to determine that the recovery would definitely be under the jurisdictional limit. Due process requires notice and discovery opportunities before determining class certification or jurisdictional value.
Analysis:
This case affirms that procedural due process survives court unification in California. It ensures that 'limited civil cases' (formerly municipal court cases) and 'unlimited civil cases' (formerly superior court cases) are distinguished based on evidence and fair argument, not judicial fiat. The decision protects plaintiffs from having their cases arbitrarily downgraded to lower jurisdictional limits, which often restricts discovery and relief. It strictly applies the Walker standard, emphasizing that a judge cannot simply look at a complaint and decide a case is 'small' without giving the plaintiff a chance to prove it is 'large' (over $25,000).
Unlock the full brief for Stern v. Superior Court