Judge Douglas W. Stern, Case Number: 22STCV40050, Date: 2023-09-12 Tentative Ruling

Nirali Patel, et al. v. Andrew Paul Brown, et al., 22STCV40050

Moving Parties: Defendants San Bernardino County and Andrew Paul Brown

Opposing Parties: Plaintiffs Nirali Patel and Alec Justice

Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on December 23, 2022, in the County of Los Angeles. This is a personal injury action. At the time of the filing of the initial complaint, Defendants were residents of the County of San Bernardino. Plaintiffs allege in their initial complaint that the incident giving rise to the complaint occurred in Chino Hills, which is in San Bernardino County. (Compl., p. 5.) Defendant Andrew Paul Brown is alleged to be an employee of the County of San Bernardino.

Defendants filed their motion for change of venue on July 17, 2023. Defendants make their motion for change of venue pursuant to CCP §§ 395 and 397. Their basis for filing this motion is that Defendants all reside in the County of San Bernardino, not the County of Los Angeles, and all the events alleged in the Complaint occurred within the County of San Bernardino.

Plaintiffs argue in their opposition that the venue should not be transferred because they both live in Los Angeles County, and it would be easier and more convenient for them if the case was venued in Los Angeles County. They also appear to argue that they would be prejudiced if the trial were held in San Bernardino County.

In their reply, Defendants contend that they are entitled to the venue where they reside absent an exception that Plaintiffs must establish. They also argue that Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing that Los Angeles County would be more convenient for the witnesses. Finally, Defendants argue that there is no evidence that would establish unfair prejudice by transferring the case to San Bernardino County.

Public policy favors trial in the county of defendants’ residence, and a complaint will be construed strictly against a plaintiff who seeks venue in another county. (Neel v. Holmes (1942) 19 Cal.2d 605, 612; Haural v. Superior Court (1966) 241 Cal.App.3d 330, 334; Bybee v. Fairchild (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 35.) Transfer of an improperly venued action is mandatory. (CCP §395(a); San Jose Ice & Cold Storage C. v. San Jose (1937) 19 Cal.App.2d 62, 64; Erwin v. Cee-Tee Construction Co. (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 364.)

In addition to the incontrovertible duty of the court to transfer improperly venued actions based on the residences of defendants, the court has additional discretion to transfer venue where said transfer would promote the convenience of witnesses and serve the ends of justice. (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594.) This includes the convenience of a party. (Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 396; Simonian v. Simonian (1950) 97 Cal.App.2d 68.)

Defendants’ motion for change of venue is based on Defendants’ residence and the location of the events alleged in the Complaint that gave rise to the action. The court may, on timely motion, “change the place of trial in the following cases: (a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (CCP § 397.)

“Except as otherwise provided by law and subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, 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.” (CCP § 395(a); Haurat v. Sup. Ct. for L.A. City (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 330, 333; Karson Indus. Inc., v. Sup. Ct. of Costa Cty (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 7, 9.) More importantly, Section 395 states: “If the action is for injury to person or personal property or for death from wrongful act or negligence, the superior court in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury causing death occur 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.” (CCP § 395(a).)

In this case, at all relevant times, Defendants’ county of residence has been San Bernardino. Further, the incident that resulted in injury and led to the complaint also occurred in the County of San Bernardino.

Plaintiffs’ argument that they would somehow be prejudiced if the case is venued in San Bernardino does not hold up. Additionally, they have not carried their burden regarding inconvenience to witnesses because Defendants and any investigators or other witnesses are all in San Bernardino County because the alleged incident happened in San Bernardino County. Plaintiffs are the only ones not located in San Bernardino County.