Judge Alison Mackenzie, Case 23SMCV00668 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 23SMCV00668, Date: 2023-05-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00668 Hearing Date: May 9, 2023 Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiffs The Lawman Group, APC and Shahin Gozarkhah (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action against California Lawyers Group, Inc. and Mitra Chegini (“Defendants”). Plaintiff The Lawman Group previously acted as counsel for third party Ali Reza Daneshi (“Daneshi”) in connection with an automobile accident he was involved in while operating a vehicle as an Uber driver. Daneshi eventually terminated Plaintiffs’ representation and retained Defendants to act as counsel in connection with the accident. Daneshi’s claims relating to the accident were eventually settled and Plaintiffs bring this action asserting they are owed a share of those settlement funds pursuant to the retention agreement between The Lawman Group and Daneshi. Defendants now move to transfer venue to Orange County, arguing venue is proper there as that is where both Defendants reside. Plaintiffs oppose Defendants’ motion.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of the Complaint in this action. Defendants’ request is unopposed and is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

“Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made.” (Brown v. Superior Court of Alameda County (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 481.) Plaintiff’s choice of venue is presumptively correct, and Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that venue is not proper there. (Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 309, 313-14.)

Code Civ. Proc. § 395(a) provides in part “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law . . . the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action. If the action is for injury to person or personal property or for death from wrongful act or negligence, the superior court in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of them reside at the commencement of the action, is a proper court for the trial of the action.” Code Civ. Proc. § 396a(b)provides in part for the transfer of an action:

If it appears from the complaint or affidavit, or otherwise, that the superior court or court location where the action or proceeding is commenced is not the proper court or court location for the trial, the court where the action or proceeding is commenced, or a judge thereof, shall, whenever that fact appears, transfer it to the proper court or court location, on its own motion, or on motion of the defendant, unless the defendant consents in writing, or in open court (consent in open court being entered in the minutes of the court), to the keeping of the action or proceeding in the court or court location where commenced.

The burden is on the moving party to establish that the venue selected by Plaintiff is improper. And the moving party has the burden of “negating the propriety of venue as laid on all possible grounds.” (Karson Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 7, 8-9.)

Code Civ. Proc. § 395(b) provides in pertinent part that “in an action arising from an offer or provision of goods, services, loans or extensions of credit intended primarily for personal, family or household use, other than an obligation described in Section 1812.10 or Section 2984.4 of the Civil Code ... the superior court in the county where the buyer or lessee in fact signed the contract, where the buyer or lessee resided at the time the contract was entered into, or where the buyer or lessee resides at the commencement of an action is the proper court for the trial of the action.” (C.C.P. § 395(b); Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 830, 837.)

Analysis

Plaintiffs bring this action seeking to recover payment on a retainer agreement entered between Daneshi and The Lawman Group. Defendants move to transfer venue of this action to Orange County, arguing they both reside in Orange County and thus venue is proper there pursuant to the default rule contained in Code Civ. Proc. § 395(a). However, as set forth above, this default rule applies “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law.” (C.C.P. § 395(a).) Code Civ. Proc. § 395(b) provides that in an action arising from the provision of services venue is proper (1) in the county where the buyer signed the contract, (2) where the buyer resided at the time the contract was entered into, or (3) where the buyer resides at the commencement of the action. The contract between Daneshi and The Lawman Group was for the provision of legal services and was signed in Los Angeles County. (Gozarkhah Decl. at ¶10.) Daneshi, the buyer under the agreement, resides in Los Angeles County. (Id. at ¶12.) These representations are undisputed by Defendants. The Court finds venue is thus proper in Los Angeles County, and Defendants’ motion to transfer venue to Orange County is DENIED.

Conclusion

Defendants’ motion to transfer venue is DENIED.