Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV04326, Date: 2022-12-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04326    Hearing Date: December 12, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

1. Background

This action arises out of a motor vehicle collision that occurred on a freeway in Costa Mesa, California, which is within the boundaries of Orange County.  On February 3, 2022, Lizza Schlumbrecht (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Karen Solomon (“Defendant”) for motor vehicle negligence in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.  Defendant lives in Santa Monica, California, which is in Los Angeles County.

On July 7, 2022, Defendant filed this motion to transfer venue to the Superior Court of Orange County.

2. Judicial Notice

The court may take judicial notice of “[o]fficial acts . . . of any state” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.”  (Evid. Code, § 452(c), (h).)  Additionally, the court may take judicial notice of the contents of a website, and a printout of information from a website can be self-authenticating.  (Ampex Corp. v. Carle (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1573-1574; Gentry v. eBay, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 816, 821.)

Here, Defendant submits a report from the California Highway Patrol (CHP Report), screenshots from medical facilities where Plaintiff was treated post-incident (Screenshots), and Post Surgery Center, LLC’s Statement of Information filed with the California Secretary of State.  (Request for Judicial Notice, Exhs. A, B, C, D. E.)  The Court will not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters asserted within the CHP Report.  The Court takes judicial notice of the screenshots to the extent that they provide evidence of the address of the facilities identified therein, as there are no objections raised.  The Court takes judicial notice of the Secretary of State filing for Post Surgery Center, LLC..

3. Motion to Transfer

Pursuant to CCP § 395(a), in an action for personal injuries, the “superior court in either the county where the injury 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.”  (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482.)  A plaintiff is entitled to the presumption that it has brought the action in a proper county, and the burden to secure a change of venue is normally on the defendant seeking transfer.  (J. C. Millett Co. v. Latchford-Marble Glass Co. (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 838, 839; see also Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc. v. Superior Court (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 65, 67 (Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc.) [“the presumption is that the defendants are residents of the county wherein the action is commenced, and the burden of proof is cast upon them to show that they were at the commencement of the action residents of another county …”].)  Where the moving party challenges the designated venue as improper, the moving party bears the burden of showing the plaintiff's venue selection is “not proper under any of the statutory grounds.”  (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836; Karson Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 7, 8-9 [defendant has the burden of “negating the propriety of venue as laid on all possible grounds.”].)

Here, venue is determined at the time the complaint was filed, on February 3, 2022.  The face of the complaint states that venue is proper in this Court because Defendant lives in its jurisdictional area.  (Complaint p. 2, ¶ 8.)  There is no dispute that defendant Solomon resided and continues to reside in Los Angeles County.  Motion at 5:7-10.  Thus, pursuant to CCP § 395(a), Los Angeles County is a proper venue for this action.  Defendant cannot meet its burden to show that venue is  “not proper under any of the statutory grounds.”    (Fontaine, 175 Cal.App.4th at 836.)

Although Los Angeles County is a proper venue for action, Defendant seeks to transfer this action to Orange County for reasons of convenience.  The court may, on motion, change the place of trial when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.  (CCP § 397(c).)  A motion for change of venue must be supported by competent evidence, such as the complaint and declarations of the parties.  (Mosby v. Superior Court (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 219, 227 (Mosby); see also Lieppman v. Lieber (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 914, 919 [declaration that relies on hearsay, generalities, and conclusions must be disregarded in determining the motion].)  Allegations in the complaint relevant to the issues raised by a motion to change venue are themselves competent evidence upon the questions to be determined.  (Mosby, 43 Cal.App.3d at 227.)

Notably, Defendant does not submit a declaration stating that while she lives in Los Angeles County, she desires to have the case heard in Orange County.  We look to other factors to decide whether a change of venue would serve the convenience of witnesses and ends of justice.  While Plaintiff does not dispute that the incident occurred in Orange County, Plaintiff does not want to transfer the case to Orange County.  (Complaint pp. 4-5.) The Screenshots provided by Defendant depict locations of medical facilities in Orange County.  (Request for Judicial Notice, Exhs. B, C, D, E.)  Defendant states that Plaintiff was treated at these facilities, which Plaintiff does not dispute.  (Motion p. 3; Opposition pp. 4-5.)  The practitioners who work at these facilities who treated Plaintiff are potential witnesses in this litigation.  However, Defendant provides no evidence as to where the treaters live or that they would be inconvenienced by or want a trial in Los Angeles County.

If this action had been filed in Orange County, the Superior Court of California, County of Orange would likely have been a proper venue.  However, venue is also proper in Los Angeles County, where this action was actually filed because Defendant lives in Los Angeles County.  Defendant did not meet her burden of showing why the convenience of witnesses or the interests of justice would be promoted by the change of venue.  Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

·       Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.

·       If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

·       Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

·       If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 8^th day of December 2022