Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCV27431, Date: 2024-12-30 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.


Case Number: 24STCV27431    Hearing Date: December 30, 2024    Dept: 56

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

 

 DANITA JO JOHNSON,

                        Plaintiff,

            vs.

 

TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC., and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

                                                                             

                        Defendants.                              

 

      CASE NO.:  24STCV27431

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO POMONA OR SAN BERNARDINO

 

Date: December 30, 2024

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept. 56

 

 

 

MOVING PARTY:  Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: None

 

            The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed.

 

BACKGROUND

             This is a lemon-law action. Plaintiff Danita Jo Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative complaint on October 21, 2024 against Defendant and Does 1 through 20 alleging causes of action for: (1) violation of subdivision (d) of Civil Code § 1793.2; (2) violation of subdivision (b) of Civil Code § 1793.2; (3) violation of subdivision (a)(3) of Civil Code § 1793.2; (4) breach of express written warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (6) violation of the Song-Beverly Act § 1793.22 [Tanner Consumer Protection Act].

            On November 21, 2024, Defendant filed the instant motion to transfer venue to Pomona or San Bernardino (the “Motion”). The Motion is unopposed.

 

DISCUSSION

            ¿ In an action arising from an offer or provision of goods or services intended primarily for personal, family or household use, venue is proper in “the superior court in the county where the buyer or lessee in fact signed the contract, where the buyer or lessee resided at the time the contract was entered into, or where the buyer or lessee resides at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action.” (Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 395 subd. (b))

 

If the plaintiff files an action with an improper court, CCP section 396a subdivision b is a mandatory venue transfer statute under which a defendant may move to transfer the case on the grounds that venue was not filed in the proper court. “If it appears from the complaint or affidavit, or otherwise, that the superior court or court location where the action or proceeding is commenced is not the proper court or court location for the trial, the court where the action or proceeding is commenced, or a judge thereof, shall, whenever that fact appears, transfer it to the proper court or court location, on its own motion, or on motion of the defendant…” (CCP, § 396a subd. (b).) 

 

“It is the moving defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds.” (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.) 

 

            Defendant requests to transfer venue from the Central District of Los Angeles County Superior Court to the East District—Pomona or San Bernardino County Superior Court on the grounds that Plaintiff states she is a resident of Pomona in the Complaint, she presented her vehicle to dealerships near Pomona for repair, and her home address on the repair orders is in Rancho Cucamonga, which is located in San Bernardino County. (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 6; Emmons Decl., Ex. A.) Plaintiff has not opposed the Motion showing any grounds as to why venue should not be transferred.

 

            Thus, because Defendant has shown that venue in the Central District of Los Angeles County Superior Court is improper pursuant to CCP section 396a subdivision (b), the Motion is GRANTED.

 

The Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED and this matter is transferred to the Pomona  Courthouse of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the transfer fee within 30 days of this order.  

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

 


 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

 

Dated this 30th day of December 2024

 

 

 

 

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court