Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 24GDCV00040, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24GDCV00040    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) notice of intent to appear is required.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument will be permitted unless a “party notifies all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no notice of intent to appear is received.”  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Treyvon Derrell Cunningham (Plaintiff) brings this action against Kia American, Inc. (Kia) and C.K. Automotive, Ince. d/b/a Future Kia (Future) (collectively Defendants). Plaintiff alleges several violations of the Song Beverly Act in connection with his purchase of 2021 Kia K5 (Subject Vehicle) from defendant Future.

Kia now moves to change venue to Fresno County, where the Subject Vehicle was purchased and serviced and where Plaintiff resides. Future joins the motion. Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to the motion.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

“The court may, on timely motion, order transfer of an action when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court. The moving party must overcome the presumption that the plaintiff has selected the proper venue. Thus, it is the moving defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds. In opposing the motion to change venue, the plaintiff may bolster his or her choice of venue with counter-affidavits consistent with the complaint’s theory of the type of action but amplifying the allegations relied upon for venue.” (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836 [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].)

For venue purposes, actions are classified as “local” or “transitory.” (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482 n.5.) To determine whether an action is “local” or “transitory,” the Court looks to the “main relief sought.” (Id.) Where the main relief sought is personal, the action is transitory; however, where the main relief involves rights to real property, the action is local. (Id.) In transitory actions against individual defendants, the general rule of venue is applicable, where the county in which the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper county for the trial of the action. (See C.C.P. § 395(a); see also Brown supra, 37 Cal.3d at 483.)

II.                 MERITS

Here, Defendants move to change venue to Fresno County. In support of their motion Defendants argue that Plaintiff has never resided in Los Angeles, that Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle in Fresno County, and that Plaintiff only sought to have the vehicle repaired in Fresno County. (See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 9, 11-16; Revis Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.) The Court notes that these arguments speak to Plaintiff’s residence and the location of the injury in controversy, not the residence of Defendants. While these can be factors in the determination of venue, the Court must first address the general venue provision in transitory actions as outlined by C.C.P. § 395(a).

C.C.P. § 395(a) provides in relevant part that, “[t]he 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.” (C.C.P. § 395(a) [emphasis added].) The Complaint makes no reference to the residence of Kia or Future in the County of Los Angeles. In contrast, Defendants have shown that one of the Defendants, Future, resides in Fresno County and nowhere else. (Revis Decl. ¶ 2.) As such, Defendants have shown that Plaintiff’s venue selection is not proper under statutory grounds. Plaintiff has rendered no opposition to this motion and a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. (California Rules of Court, Rule 8.54(c).)

Given that Defendants have shown the proper venue to be Fresno County, the presumption that Plaintiff has selected the proper venue is adequately rebutted. As such, Defendants’ motion to change venue is GRANTED.

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Kia America, Inc.’s Motion to Change Venue came on regularly for hearing on March 8, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE IS GRANTED.

UNLESS ALL PARTIES WAIVE NOTICE, KIA TO GIVE NOTICE. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.