Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 22STCV16648, Date: 2022-10-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV16648    Hearing Date: October 3, 2022    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff Eduardo Arnulfo Rios (“Plaintiff”), as successor in interest to Juan Jesus Calderon Rios (“Decedent”), filed this action against defendants Michael Voight (“Voight”), Housing Helpers, Inc. (“Housing Helpers”), and Boulder Valley Transfer, Inc. (“Boulder”) for damages relating to the alleged wrongful death of Decedent. 

At this time, Defendants Voight and Housing Helpers (collectively, “Defendants”) move to transfer venue to Ventura County.  Defendants provide evidence showing that the underlying incident involving Decedent occurred in Ventura County, and Defendants assert Voight is a resident of, and Housing Helpers has its principal place of business in, Ventura County.  Furthermore, Defendants aver that Boulder is a Colorado corporation that is not registered with the California Secretary of State and had no involvement with the underlying incident.  Defendants request that this matter be transferred to Ventura County, and that Plaintiff’s counsel be sanctioned in the amount of $3,875.00.[1] 

In opposition, Plaintiff does not oppose the transfer of this matter to Ventura County.  Plaintiff provides he has been attempting to reach a stipulation to transfer the matter for some time, and that Plaintiff expects the parties reach a stipulation before the motion is heard.  Plaintiff asserts he opposes the request for sanctions because Plaintiff was initially under the belief that the underlying incident occurred in Los Angeles County, and that Plaintiff has been meeting and conferring with Defendants after determining that Ventura County was the proper venue. 

Plaintiff has dismissed Boulder from this action.  Moreover, on September 26, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to transfer the matter to Ventura County. 

Defendants, therefore, establish venue is improper in Los Angeles, which Plaintiff does not dispute.  The action was filed in the “wrong court,” and the action must be transferred.  Pursuant to CCP §395(a), an action for personal injuries is properly brought in the county where the accident occurred or the county where at least one defendant resides. 

The motion is therefore granted. 

Because transfer is ordered on the ground that Plaintiff filed in the “wrong court,” Plaintiff is responsible for paying the costs and fees of transferring the action to Ventura County within thirty days after service of notice of the transfer order. If Plaintiff fails to do so within five days after service of notice of the order, any other interested party, whether named in the complaint or not, may pay such costs and fees in order to expedite the transfer.  If the fees and costs are not paid within thirty days, the action is subject to dismissal.   (CCP § 399(a); see Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1037.)

As to the request for sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, “the court shall take into consideration (1) whether an offer to stipulate to change of venue was reasonably made and rejected, and (2) whether the motion or selection of venue was made in good faith given the facts and law the party making the motion or selecting the venue knew or should have known.”  (CCP § 396b(b).)  The evidence shows that Plaintiff attempted to meet and confer with Defendants regarding the transfer of this action to Ventura County, and Plaintiff acted in good faith in filing this action in Los Angeles County. 

Defendants are 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 3^rd day of October 2022