Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV30898, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30898    Hearing Date: April 16, 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

On December 18, 2023, Plaintiff Ana Delia Tizcareno Ojeda (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Southern California Regional Rail Authority Corp., Metrolink, Clayton Tell Anderson, County of Ventura, City of Ventura, City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and Does 1 to 50 for negligence surrounding a motor vehicle accident.

Plaintiff alleges that on December 5, 2022, Defendant Clayton Tell Anderson collided with her vehicle while in the scope of employment with the co-defendants in this action. (Complaint ¶ 26.)

Between January 25, 2024 and February 13, 2024, the Court dismissed the following defendants pursuant to Plaintiff’s request: County of Ventura, City of Ventura, City of Los Angeles, State of California, and County of Los Angeles. Therefore, the remaining defendants in this case are Southern California Regional Rail Authority Corp., Metrolink, and Clayton Tell Anderson.

On January 25, 2024, Moving Defendant Southern California Regional Rail Authority Corp. aka Metrolink (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion, to transfer venue of this case to the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.  

JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s complaint. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)

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.”

¿ 

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.

“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.)¿

The burden is on the moving party to establish facts justifying the transfer.¿ (Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 928.)¿Where a party moves to transfer venue based on the convenience of witnesses, it must submit affidavits showing the names of each witness expected to testify for both parties, the substance of their expected testimony, whether the witness has been deposed or given a statement, the reasons why it would be inconvenient for the witnesses to appear, and the reasons why the ends of justice would be promoted by transfer to a different county.¿ (Juneau v. Juneau (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 14, 16; Edwards v. Pierson (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 72, 75 [“The burden rests upon one who seeks a change of venue . . . to prove that both the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted thereby . . . This he must do through affidavits which contain something more than generalities and conclusions”].) ¿

DISCUSSION

Defendant concedes that one or more of the defendants in this case when it commenced resided within Los Angeles County. However, Defendant argues that this case should be transferred based on section 397(c) because the motor vehicle accident occurred in Ventura County. Defendant argues that all the witnesses, including the investigating Ventura County Sheriff, reside in Ventura County. Defendant also speculates that Plaintiff was presumably treated in Ventura County. (Motion, 4.) These purported facts are not supported in the declaration attached to this motion.

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that Defendant is headquartered in Los Angeles County and that witnesses, including Plaintiff’s treating providers, are located in Los Angeles County.

Defendant has not provided declarations or other evidence that the non-party witnesses in this action would be inconvenienced by keeping this case in the present court. Therefore, Defendant fails to meet its burden under section 397(c). Accordingly, the motion to transfer venue is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER 

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Southern California Regional Rail Authority Corp.’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED.

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