Lexplug logoLexplug

Walker v. Superior Court

California Supreme Court
279 Cal. Rptr. 576, 53 Cal.3d 257, 807 P.2d 418 (1991)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A superior court may transfer an action to a municipal court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction only when the lack of jurisdiction is apparent from the pleadings or when, after a hearing, the court determines that a judgment in excess of the jurisdictional amount is legally impossible or virtually unattainable.


Facts:

  • Petitioner Walker was riding a motorcycle when he was struck by a car driven by an employee of Residential Construction Enterprises (RCE).
  • Walker was thrown onto the hood of the car and landed on the roadway, claiming injuries to his knee, neck, and back.
  • Walker sought damages for medical expenses, lost earnings, and property damage; he later settled with the employee for $15,000 but continued pursuing RCE.
  • Petitioner White was a pedestrian crossing a street when she was struck by a car driven by Slaton; she asserted she was in a crosswalk at the time.
  • White claimed medical bills over $17,000 and lost wages over $10,000, alleging she suffered personal injuries.
  • In White's case, an arbitrator awarded $25,000 but noted that principles of comparative fault applied to reduce the claim.

Procedural Posture:

  • Petitioner Walker filed a personal injury lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
  • Following arbitration and a settlement conference, the Superior Court (Judge Workman) reviewed the file, determined the case did not meet the $25,000 jurisdictional minimum, and ordered it transferred to municipal court without a hearing.
  • Petitioner White filed a personal injury lawsuit in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
  • Following an arbitration award of $25,000, the Superior Court (Judge Kakita) ordered the matter transferred to the municipal court for failure to meet the jurisdictional requirement.
  • Both petitioners sought writs of mandate from the Court of Appeal to overturn the transfer orders.
  • The Court of Appeal consolidated the matters and issued opinions granting the requested writs.
  • The Supreme Court of California granted review to resolve a conflict in the Courts of Appeal regarding the interpretation of Code of Civil Procedure section 396.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a superior court have the authority under Code of Civil Procedure section 396 to transfer a case to the municipal court when, during pretrial proceedings, the judge determines that a judgment exceeding the jurisdictional minimum is unlikely or not reasonably probable?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Lucas

No, the court may not transfer a case based merely on the likelihood of the outcome; instead, the court must determine that the action will 'necessarily' result in a verdict below the jurisdictional amount. While Code of Civil Procedure section 396 allows courts to inquire into their own jurisdiction beyond the face of the complaint to manage their calendars efficiently, this power must be balanced against the plaintiff's constitutional right to a jury trial. The standard for transfer must be high, similar to the federal 'legal certainty' test. A transfer is only permissible if the court concludes that a verdict exceeding the jurisdictional minimum ($25,000) is virtually unattainable. In these cases, because the settlement recommendations and arbitration awards were very close to the limit, it was not legally certain the plaintiffs could not recover more, and thus the trial courts abused their discretion.


Concurring_and_dissenting - Justice Broussard

No, the superior court lacks the authority to transfer a case so long as the complaint pleads damages within the jurisdiction of the superior court in good faith. The historical interpretation of Section 396 relies strictly on the amount demanded in the verified pleadings. By allowing courts to evaluate the 'true value' of a case, the majority is engaging in judicial legislation to assist with crowded dockets, which improperly impairs the established legislative scheme where costs—not transfer—are the penalty for inflated claims.



Analysis:

This decision is a landmark ruling in California civil procedure regarding subject matter jurisdiction and case management. It strikes a balance between judicial efficiency (allowing courts to clear low-value cases from their dockets) and the constitutional right to a jury trial (preventing judges from substituting their view of damages for that of a jury). The court establishes a high bar for transfer—'necessarily' below the limit—which aligns California law closer to the federal 'legal certainty' standard. This prevents trial courts from offloading cases simply because they view a high verdict as unlikely, ensuring that plaintiffs have the opportunity to prove their damages unless it is legally impossible for them to reach the jurisdictional threshold.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Walker v. Superior Court (1991)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"