Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 24STCV32578, Date: 2025-02-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV32578    Hearing Date: February 21, 2025    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On December 11, 2024, Plaintiff Larry Jones filed this action against Defendants County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, Ira Ynigo, and Ramon Arambulo. The complaint stems from alleged mistreatment Plaintiff suffered while being incarcerated at the Men’s Central Jail in Los Angeles.

            On January 15, 2025, Defendants filed the instant motion for a change of venue. Plaintiff filed his opposition on February 7, 2025. Defendants filed their reply on February 13, 2025.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “The court may, on motion, change the place of trial . . . [w]hen there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 397(b).) “[T]his provision requires a showing of actual prejudice to the moving party, and whether the showing has been made is left to the discretion of the trial court.” (Ohio Casualty Ins. Group v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 444, 452.)

            Defendants argue that the “reasonable likelihood”[1] standard that applies to criminal cases should apply to this case because Plaintiff’s claims are “quasi-criminal” in nature. Defendants cite no case where a civil action was subject to the “reasonable likelihood” standard on the grounds that the causes of action were quasi-criminal in nature. The “reasonable likelihood” standard is derived from Penal Code section 1033(a), which applies “[i]n a criminal action pending in the superior court.” This case is not a criminal action pending in the superior court. Defendants’ motion is made under Code of Civil Procedure section 397(b). Courts are unequivocal in requiring actual prejudice under section 397(b). (See Ohio Casualty, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 452 [“this provision requires a showing of actual prejudice to the moving party”]; Nguyen v. Superior Court (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1781, 1791 [“Petitioners must show actual prejudice”].) Therefore, Defendants must show actual prejudice.

DISCUSSION

            Defendants argue that a fair trial cannot be had in Los Angeles County based on social media posts by Plaintiff’s wife, Ms. Gonzalez-Rios, criticizing Defendant Ynigo and the Sheriff’s Department. Defendants also rely on news articles and other social media posts discussing the case. Defendants contend that these posts are false and inflammatory and would prejudice a potential jury in Los Angeles County. Defendants request the trial be moved to one of the following alternative counties: Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, or Riverside.

            Defendants have failed to show actual prejudice as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 397(b). Defendants present a list of social media posts pertaining to the case which have purportedly garnered around 12,000 views collectively. However, the effect of this is speculative. The population of Los Angeles County is much higher than 12,000. There is no indication that the referenced social media posts, which can be accessed from anywhere, would taint a potential jury pool in Los Angeles County.

            Defendants merely speculate without evidence that because some of the posts mention “Los Angeles,” they likely reached a substantial number of individuals within Los Angeles County based on TikTok’s algorithm. Defendants demonstrate no personal knowledge of social media algorithms or the actual dissemination of the social media posts at issue. There is no indication that any, much less a substantial portion, of the 12,000 views attributed to the posts were from residents of Los Angeles County.[2] Defendants themselves acknowledge that 12,000 views “seem insignificant given the size of the jury pool in Los Angeles County.” (Reply 3:22-24.) Defendants admit that any further impact of the social media posts is “unquantified,” speculating that it “might” be significant. (Reply 3:24-4:2.) This is not evidence of “sensational and extensive” media coverage (see People v. Leonard (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1370, 1395) and does not come close to showing the actual prejudice required for a change of venue. 

Defendant Ynigo also vaguely claims that he has been “recognized by people in my community when I go to the gym and go to the store where I live, also at work in the Men’s Central Jail.” (Ynigo Decl. ¶ 8.) The fact that Ynigo is recognized by people in his own community is unremarkable. Ynigo does not aver that any of the purported recognition has been negative or related to the case, nor does he explain why limited recognition in his own community results in tainting a jury pool drawn from the wider Los Angeles County.

Ultimately, Defendants’ “limited showing does not demonstrate a widespread feeling of prejudice extending over a long time.” (See Nguyen, supra, 49 Cal.App.4th at p. 1791.) Defendants have failed to demonstrate the actual prejudice required for a change of venue.

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motion to change venue is DENIED.