Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV00022, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV00022 Hearing Date: October 31, 2022 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Maven Med, Inc.
vs. Texas Medical Technology, et. al., Case No. 22STCV00022
Tentative Ruling
re: Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue
Defendants Texas Medical Technology
(a Texas LLC), Texas Medical Technology (a California business entity), Texas
Medical, Omri Shafran, and Revital Mos (collectively, Defendants) move to
transfer venue to Texas. The motion is denied.
On timely motion, the court must order a transfer of venue
“when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (Code
Civ. Proc., §§ 396b, 397(a).) A motion to transfer venue on grounds the
designated court is not proper must be filed and served before or at the time
of filing an answer, demurer, or motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., §
396b.) “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; Haurat v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 241
Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [“Venue is determined on the basis of the complaint as it
stands at the time the motion to change is made, and the plaintiff is not
permitted to make a subsequent election of theories by proposed amendments
thereto”].)
The general venue
rule is that “the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of
them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial
of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395(a).) Additionally,
“when a plaintiff brings an action against several defendants, both individual
and corporate, in a county in which none of the defendants reside, an
individual defendant has the right to change venue
to the county of his or her residence.” (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 837.) “If none of the
defendants reside in the state or if they reside in the state and the county where they
reside is unknown to the plaintiff, the action may be tried in the superior
court in any county that the plaintiff may designate in his or her complaint,
and, if the defendant is about to depart from the state, the action may be
tried in the superior court in any county where either of the parties reside or
service is made.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 395, subd.
(a).)
As an initial matter, Defendants’ notice of
motion is deficient: “The notice of motion should specify the county or
judicial district to which the transfer is sought, and a notice of motion to
change the venue to one county will not support a motion for change to a
different county.” (61 Cal. Jur. 3d Venue § 88 [citing Heidel v. California
Transit Co. (1928) 204 Cal. 21].) Defendants’ Notice only states that
transfer is being sought to “Texas.”
In addition to the deficient
notice, Defendants’ motion to transfer venue to Texas must be denied because a
motion to transfer venue operates to transfer an action to a different county
within California, not out of state. Under
Code Civ. Proc. § 395, subd. (a), a proper court is generally “the superior
court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside” (emphasis
added). “The term ‘venue’ denotes the particular
county within the state where a case is to be heard.” (California State
Parks Foundation v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 826, 833.) This
Court lacks authority under the venue statutes (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 392, et
seq.) to transfer venue to an unspecified court in Texas.
Defendants’ request to have this
action heard in a forum outside California must be made pursuant to Code Civ.
Proc. § 410.30, supported by a showing that dismissal in favor of Texas would
be “in the interest of substantial justice”: “When a court upon motion of a
party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an
action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or
dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” (Code
Civ. Proc. § 410.30, subd. (a).)