Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00778, Date: 2023-01-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00778    Hearing Date: January 5, 2023    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     January 5, 2023                                   TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         PERLA MAGENO, an individual, v. CHAR O CHICKEN SYSTEMS, INC. a California corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive.

CASE NO.:                 22AHCV00778

MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE

MOVING PARTY:              Defendant Char O Chicken Systems, Inc. (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY:      Plaintiff Perla Mageno

SERVICE:                              Filed November 29, 2022

OPPOSITION:                       Filed December 21, 2022

REPLY:                                   Filed December 27, 2022

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Defendant moves to change the venue to the Orange County Superior Court.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Plaintiff Perla Mageno’s (“Plaintiff”) claim that Defendant Char O Chicken Systems (“Defendant”) failed to operate its website to be fully accessible to visually-impaired individuals. Plaintiff alleges that she is visually impaired and uses screen-reading software to access websites. She alleges that she experienced barriers while attempting to use Defendant’s website.

            Plaintiff filed this complaint alleging one cause of action for violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act”).

TENTATIVE RULING

            Defendant’s motion to change venue is DENIED.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

            Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c).

            Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice for Exhibits 1 and 2 are granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d). However, the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of the court orders but not of the disputed facts or reasoning contained within the documents.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Upon a timely filed motion, a court may change the place of trial “[w]hen the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.”

DISCUSSION

            Defendant moves to change the venue to the Orange County Superior Court.

            “The moving party must overcome the presumption that the plaintiff has selected the proper venue. [Citation.] Thus, ‘[i]t 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.) “Pursuant to section 395, subdivision (a), the general venue rule is that ‘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.’ ” (Id. at p. 837.)

            Defendant provides that its principal place of business is in Orange County. (Leight Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant also provides that it has no known relationship with Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 7.)

             Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5 provides: “A corporation or association may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases.”

            Here, Plaintiff alleges that she is a resident of Los Angeles County and attempted to use Defendant’s website. (Complaint ¶ 7.) Plaintiff alleges that she accessed the website to avail herself of Defendant’s goods and services as well as to test Defendant’s website’s compliance with the Unruh Act. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiff alleges that she was deterred from patronizing Defendant’s website and brick-and-mortar locations. (Id. ¶ 10.)

            Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5 provides that a proper venue for a corporation is where “the obligation or liability arises”. “This section must be read in light of the paramount purpose of section 395.5, which is to permit a wider choice of venue against corporations or associations than would be permitted in suits against individuals.” (Black Diamond Ashpalt, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 166, 171.) “ For purposes of laying venue, a liability ‘arises’ where the injury occurs.” (Id. at p. 172.)

            “The Unruh Act ‘prohibits intentional discrimination in access to public accommodations.’ ” (Smith v. BP Lubricants USA Inc. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 138, 149.)

As alleged, Plaintiff’s claims appear to arise in Los Angeles County when she sought to use Defendant’s website but was deterred from doing so based on the alleged violations of the Unruh Act, making the present court a proper venue.

            Defendant has failed to establish that the current venue is an improper one. Defendant argues that Plaintiff failed to provide an appellate opinion stating that location and prospective plaintiff sought to access a website is the basis for proper venue. However, Defendant’s argument improperly attempts to shifts the burden to Plaintiff when it is Defendant’s burden to demonstrate the present venue is improper. Further, the Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s slippery slope argument that any plaintiff, no matter how remote, could bring a suit against any defendant based on inability to access a website. That issue is relevant to an inquiry of jurisdiction rather than venue. Defendant has failed to establish that the present venue is improper.

            Defendant’s motion to change venue is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

            Defendant’s motion to change venue is DENIED.

Dated:   January 5, 2023                                             ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court