Judge: Edward B. Moreton, Jr, Case: 23SMCV03364, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV03364    Hearing Date: January 14, 2025    Dept: 205

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – West District

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205

MOVING PARTY:                    Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY:         Plaintiff Sonik Babakhani-Darbroudy

BACKGROUND

On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff Sonik Babakhani-Darbroudy (hereafter "Plaintiff") was traveling on a coach bus driven by Defendant Brandon Wayne Pinkney (hereafter "Pinkney") in the course and scope of his employment for Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. (hereafter "Greyhound"). The bus crashed. At the time of the crash, the bus was in Tulare County, California.

On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence and negligent hiring supervision and retention.

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Defendant Greyhound Lines, Inc. requests judicial notice of the following: (1) the Complaint filed in this action, Sonik Babakhani-Darbroudy v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. et al., case no. 24SMCV03364 in the Los Angeles County Superior Court; (2) the First Amended Complaint filed in Rebecca McCormick v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. et al., case no. VCU308514 in the Tulare County Superior Court; (3) the Complaint filed in Hugo Toledo v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. et al., Case No. VCU311440 in the Tulare County Superior Court; (4) the Complaint filed in Isaac Villalobos Pavon v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. VCU311727 in the Tulare County Superior Court; (5) Judge Edward Moreton’s Minute Order on September 30, 2024 regarding Angela Harris Collins v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. et al., Case No. 24SMCV03588, transferring venue to Tulare County from Los Angeles County; (6) Notice from Tulare County Court of the assignment of a Case Number and Case Management Conference for Angela Harris Collins v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. et al, Case No. VCU31580; (7) Judge Randolph Hammock’s Minute Order on September 9, 2024 regarding Benjamin Clemmons, et al, v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. et al., Case No. 24STCV14575, transferring venue to Tulare County from Los Angeles County; (8) Judge Randolph Hammock’s Notice on November 4, 2024 regarding Benjamin Clemmons, et al, v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. et al., Case No. 24STCV14575, transferring venue to Tulare County from Los Angeles County.

The Court grants the first request. A court may take judicial notice of the contents of its own records. (Dwan v. Dixon (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 260, 265.)

            The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the second through eighth requests were filed, but not of the contents of those documents. A court may take judicial notice that certain documents were filed in prior litigation, or that certain factual findings were made, but generally may not take judicial notice of the contents of those filings, or of the factual findings themselves. (See, e.g., Arce v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 483-484.)

LEGAL STANDARDS

Plaintiff’s choice of venue is presumptively correct.  (Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 309, 313-14.)  Thus, the moving party has the burden to establish that the venue selected by Plaintiff is improper “negating the propriety of venue as laid on all possible grounds.”  (Karson Industries, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 7, 8-9; Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175¿Cal.App.4th 830, 836.) Further, venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made. (Brown v. Super. Ct. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482.)

A defendant corporation is limited, however, to having the venue transferred only to its county of residence and not to another county where it could have been sued. (Code Civ. Proc., §395.5; Beutke v American Sec. Co. (1955) 132 CA2d 354, 361.)

DISCUSSION

            Here, the moving defendant is a corporation. It requests transfer to Tulare County on the grounds that no defendant resides in Los Angeles County, the accident did not occur in Los Angeles County, and no defendant consents to venue in Los Angeles County. But the moving defendant does not assert or submit evidence that Tulare County is its county of residence.

            Thus, the Court denies the motion.

            In addition, the Court does not reward sanctions because Plaintiff did not request them. (Code Civ. Proc., § 396b(b).)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the motion to transfer venue. The Court does not award sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 14, 2025                                                   ___________________________

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.

Judge of the Superior Court