Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV30348, Date: 2024-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30348    Hearing Date: October 17, 2024    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

This is a personal injury action based on an auto accident that occurred in New Mexico on December 24, 2022. On December 13, 2023, plaintiff Lucas Gaspar Juan (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendants American Roadlines LLC (American Roadlines), Rubal Singh (Singh), and Does 1 through 25, alleging causes of action for negligence, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring. On July 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint, substituting FedEx Freight, Inc. (FedEx) for Doe 1.

On August 29, 2024, FedEx moved for change of venue. On October 9, 2024, Plaintiff opposed the motion. On October 9, 2024, FedEx replied.

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.)¿¿ 

“[I]f an action or proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof, other than the court designated as the proper court for the trial thereof, under this title, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the court where commenced, unless the defendant, at the time he or she answers, demurs, or moves to strike, or, at his or her option, without answering, demurring, or moving to strike and within the time otherwise allowed to respond to the complaint, files with the clerk, a notice of motion for an order transferring the action or proceeding to the proper court, together with proof of service, upon the adverse party, of a copy of those papers. Upon the hearing of the motion the court shall, if it appears that the action or proceeding was not commenced in the proper court, order the action or proceeding transferred to the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 396b, subd. (a).)

¿ 

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.”

“If a plaintiff has failed to heed the venue rules above, and the defendant makes timely objection, the court must order the action transferred to any ‘proper’ county requested by defendant. (This is true even if grounds exist for retransferring the action back to the county where filed, on the grounds of ‘convenience of witnesses’ ...) [Citation.]” (Cholakian & Assocs. v. Superior Ct. (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 361, 373, italics in original.)

DISCUSSION

            FedEx moves for change of venue on the grounds that Defendants American Roadlines and Singh are both residents of Fresno County, and because FedEx is an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business in Tennessee without a corporate office in California. FedEx contends the complaint indisputably sets forth that American Roadlines and Singh both reside in Fresno County, and this action should have either been filed in New Mexico where the accident occurred or in Fresno County. FedEx contends that even if Plaintiff later attempts to file a motion to change venue based upon convenience of witnesses, this case must be transferred in the meantime. FedEx also contends that any such motion would be questionable given the allegations of negligent entrustment and hiring that may have occurred in Fresno County.

            In opposition, Plaintiff contends he expressly reserved his right to file a motion for change of venue if the Court grants FedEx’s motion here. Plaintiff contends American Roadlines and Singh did not oppose venue in Los Angeles County, so he is not sure why FedEx is now attempting to change the venue after the parties have been litigating this matter for six months. Plaintiff also contends nearly all of the witnesses reside in Los Angeles, including all of Plaintiff’s treating doctors, except for the initial hospital visit in New Mexico. Plaintiff contends he would be highly prejudiced to have to expend tremendous resources to try his case in Fresno County, California, Cibola County, New Mexico, or Shelby County, Tennessee. Plaintiff also contends FedEx has 109 offices just in the City of Los Angeles. Plaintiff otherwise contends that this motion is just an attempt to delay this matter, as it will be eventually brought back to Los Angeles County where nearly all of the witnesses reside, include counsel for American Roadlines and Singh.

            Plaintiff’s opposition does not demonstrate that the Los Angeles Superior Court is the proper court. The complaint alleges that American Roadlines and Singh reside in Fresno County. (Compl., ¶¶ 3-4.) The complaint also alleges that the underlying accident occurred in New Mexico. (Compl., ¶ 1.) FedEx presented evidence that its principal place of business is in Tennessee. (Motion, Ex. 1.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the motion. Prior to the hearing on this motion, the parties must advise the Court whether they have stipulated to the proper court. “Absent such stipulation, it must be transferred to the proper court in a proper county designated by the defendant.” (Cubic Corp. v. Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 622, 625.) Accordingly, absent stipulation, Defendant FedEx shall advise the Court of the county designated by Defendant.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

The Court GRANTS the motion.

Defendant shall provide notice and file a proof of service of such.