§ 85.Conditions for treatment as limited civil case

1998 Law Revision Commission Comment. Former Section 85 is continued in Section 582.5 without substantive change, except that Section 582.5 refers to limited civil cases instead of cases brought in municipal court. Section 85 is added to accommodate unification of the municipal and superior courts in a county. Cal. Const. art. VI, § 5(e). It facilitates differentiation among civil cases for purposes such as determining original jurisdiction in a county in which there is a municipal court (see Section 85.1), applying economic litigation procedures (see Section 91), and defining appellate jurisdiction (see Sections 904.1, 904.2). The amount in controversy requirement of subdivision (a) derives from the $25,000 jurisdictional limit that applied to the municipal courts. See, e.g., 2 B. Witkin, California Procedure Courts § 249, at 323–25 (4th ed. 1996). Now, a case is a limited civil case and subject to the procedures for a limited civil case only if the amount in controversy is $25,000 or less. The last sentence of subdivision (a), defining “amount in controversy,” continues the former second sentence of Section 91 without change. For discussion of calculating amounts in controversy in cases involving multiple causes, see R. Weil & I. Brown, Jr., California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial, Jurisdiction and Venue §§ 3:97–3:11 1, at 3–22 to 3–24 (1997); 2 B. Witkin, California Procedure Jurisdiction §§ 38– 44, at 582–86 (4th ed. 1996). Subdivision (b) reflects and preserves limitations on the types of equitable relief awardable in a municipal court. See Section 580 & Comment. Where a money judgment for $25,000 or less would fully resolve a dispute and there is no need for a declaration of future rights, the case is a limited civil case despite a prayer for declaratory relief. See Cardellini v. Casey, 181 Cal. App. 3d 389, 396, 226 Cal. Rptr. 659 (1986). Subdivision (c) continues the effect of former law, under which each county had one or more municipal courts and a superior court. Causes like those now listed in subdivision (c) were within the original jurisdiction of the municipal court and subject to procedures now applicable to a limited civil case. Where a cause within the original jurisdiction of the municipal court was properly joined with one within the original jurisdiction of the superior court, the entire case would be tried in the superior court. See, e.g., Wiggins v. Washington Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 246 Cal. App. 2d 840, 848, 55 Cal. Rptr. 129 (1966) (“from the moment defendant filed its cross-complaint for declaratory relief in the instant action the municipal court lost jurisdiction over the cause and was obliged to suspend further proceedings in the action and to transfer it to the superior court”); Armstrong v. Transcontinental Land & Water Co., 134 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 889, 285 P.2d 1031 (1955) (joinder of equitable cross–complaint compelled transfer of entire action to superior court). Subdivision (c) continues that policy by requiring that relief in a limited civil case be exclusively of a type described in one or more of the listed provisions, or an unlisted provision if the provision classifies the case as a limited civil case or places the case within the original jurisdiction of the municipal court. See, e.g., Section 688.010 (enforcement of state tax liability pursuant to warrant or notice of levy). If another type of cause is joined, the procedures for a limited civil case do not apply. See Sections 22 (action defined), 23 (special proceeding defined).