Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV07528, Date: 2023-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07528    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On March 2, 2022, Plaintiff Maria de la Cruz Pimentel Dominguez (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Martha Sanchez (Defendant) and Does 1 to 20, alleging negligence for a motor vehicle accident.

On September 11, 2023, during a hearing on Defendant’s motion to continue trial, the Court ordered the parties to submit briefs discussing:

(1) whether venue is proper in Los Angeles County,

(2) whether any objection regarding venue has been waived, and

(3) whether the Court may consider and rule on the venue issue sua sponte without a motion by Defendant.

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a), in an action for personal injuries, 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.”

“Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made. [Citations.]” (Dow AgroSciences, LLC v. Superior Court (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1076.)¿¿ 

¿ 

Code of Civil Procedure section 397 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

“The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases:

(a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.

(b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein.

(c) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

(d) When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act.

DISCUSSION

Defendant concedes that a motion for change of venue was not filed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 396b. Defendant argues, however, that Defendant may now bring an oral or written motion to change venue pursuant to section 397 if a hearing date were available prior to trial, based on the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice being promoted by the change.[1] (Def. Br. at pg. 3.) Plaintiff argues that if the Court allows a change of venue, “the case will essentially start over, with the court in the new venue setting a new trial date out at least another year. In light of the fact has been going on for over a year and a half, this matter should settle or go to trial.” (Pl. Br. at pg. 2.) Plaintiff further argues that any inconvenience to the parties “is non-existent since they can testify at trial remotely and do so from the comforts of their homes.” (Id.)

In light of the arguments of counsel, the Court discharges the Order to Show Cause.

The Clerk of the Court shall give notice.