Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23GDCV01804, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV01804    Hearing Date: October 27, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Antonio Mendez (“Gutierrez”) alleges that he purchased a 2021 Ford Explorer on October 13, 2021.  He alleges that the causes of action arise out of warranty and repair obligations of Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”).  Plaintiff alleges that at the time the vehicle was delivered to him, it had serious defects and nonconformities to the warranty including, but not limited to, electrical and structural system defects.  Plaintiff alleges that he presented the vehicle for repairs to Defendant DWWVF, Inc. dba David Wilson’s Villa Ford (“DWWVF”) in October 2022, November 2022, January 2023, and August 2023 and now seeks to revoke the sales contract. 

The complaint, filed August 24, 2023, alleges causes of action for: (1) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty; (2) violation of Song-Beverly Act – breach of implied warranty; (3) violation of Song-Beverly Act § 1793.2; and (4) negligent repair.

B.     Motion on Calendar

On September 25, 2023, Ford filed a motion to transfer venue from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the Orange County Superior Court – Santa Ana Courthouse. 

            On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition brief.

            On October 20, 2023, Ford filed a reply brief.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 397(c) states that the court may, on motion, change the place of trial when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.  “Whether a motion for change of venue on the ground of convenience of witnesses should be granted or denied is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge.”  (International Inv. Co. v. Merola (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 439, 446.) 

The burden of providing both the convenience of witnesses and the promotion of the ends of justice are on the moving party.  (Flanagan v. Flanagan (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 641, 643.)  With respect to establishing the “convenience of witnesses” made by affidavit, the showing must include: (1) the name of witnesses, (2) the nature of the testimony expected from each, and (3) the reasons why the attendance of each would be inconvenient.  (Id. at 644.)  Before the motion is granted, it must appear that the witnesses involved will testify to relevant and material facts, they will be inconvenienced unless the place of trial is changed, and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change in venue.  (Id. at 646.)  As for the “ends of justice,” the affidavit supporting the motion “must aver the facts from which such a conclusion may be reached.”  (Id.)

“If the affidavits of plaintiff in opposition to the motion for change of venue show that his witnesses also will be inconvenienced by the change to another county as is requested by defendant, there is no abuse of the trial court's discretion in denying the motion.”  (Hecker v. Ross (1960) 183 Cal.App.2d 30, 33.)  

DISCUSSION

            Ford moves to transfer this action to the Santa Ana Courthouse based on the convenience of witnesses and to promote the ends of justice.  It also requests that Plaintiff’s counsel pay Ford for attorney’s fees, costs, and transfer fees incurred in bringing this motion in the amount of $1,000. 

A.    Filing of the Motion  

            Plaintiff’s opposition is mainly focused on the issue of whether this motion was properly filed in the Burbank Courthouse, Department B. 

The Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule, Rule 2.3(b)(2) states:

(2) The Supervising Judge of the Civil Division may, for the convenience of witnesses or to promote the ends of justice, transfer a civil case from one district to another. Except for proceedings concerning transfer of a Personal Injury Action, as defined in subsection (a)(1)(A), motions to transfer a civil action from one district to another, including motions based upon a failure to file the case in accordance with the requirements set forth in this Chapter must be made in Department 1 in the Central District. Proceedings concerning transfer of a Personal Injury Action shall be determined in the Central District or in the North District in one of the departments designated to hear those matters (“Personal Injury Court”).

(LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).) 

            Plaintiff argues that pursuant to Local Rule 2.3(b)(2), this motion was improperly filed with Department B and should have been filed in Department 1 in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.  Thus, Plaintiff argues that the motion to transfer should be denied in its entirety.  (Opp. at pp.4-5.)

            However, this Local Rule is specific only to transfers of a civil case from “one district to another.”  Here, for example, Ford does not seek to transfer this action from Burbank Courthouse to Santa Monica Courthouse, both of which are located in Los Angeles County.  Rather, Ford seeks to transfer the venue to a different county pursuant to the CCP rules. 

            Thus, the Court will hear the substantive merits of the motion to change venue.

B.     Discussion of Merits

            Ford argues that this action should be transferred to the Santa Ana Courthouse as the proper venue because Plaintiff resides in Santa Ana, DWWVF is located in Orange and DWWVF is where the multiple repairs were performed for the vehicle, and all relevant parties and witnesses are located in Orange County.  Ford argues there is no basis to have the action in Burbank of Los Angeles County. 

            According to Ford’s counsel, Cynthia Sun, Plaintiff purchased the subject vehicle from AutoNation Ford Tustin located at 2 Auto Center Drive, Tustin, CA 92782 on October 13, 2021.  (Sun Decl., ¶2.)  The vehicle was brought for repairs with DWWVF, which is located in Orange, California.  Plaintiff acknowledges this in the complaint.  (Id.; Compl., ¶4.)  Pursuant to the allegations of the complaint, Plaintiff resides in Santa Ana.  (Sun Decl., ¶5; Compl., ¶2.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff provides not substantive arguments regarding why this action should remain in Burbank or Los Angeles County, as opposed to Orange County.  Plaintiff does not dispute his city and county of residence, where the vehicle was purchased, and where the vehicle repairs were performed—all of which are located in Orange County.  Plaintiff has not provided any arguments or evidence showing that the action belongs in Los Angeles County or that there are witnesses that reside in Orange County such that convenience of witnesses makes it necessary for this action to be in Los Angeles County. 

            Based on the papers before the Court, the Court finds there is substantive merit to granting the motion to transfer venue. 

C.     Reasonable Attorney’s Fees and Costs

CCP § 396b(b) states:

In its discretion, the court may order the payment to the prevailing party of reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in making or resisting the motion to transfer whether or not that party is otherwise entitled to recover his or her costs of action. In determining whether that order for expenses and fees shall be made, the court shall take into consideration (1) whether an offer to stipulate to change of venue was reasonably made and rejected, and (2) whether the motion or selection of venue was made in good faith given the facts and law the party making the motion or selecting the venue knew or should have known. As between the party and his or her attorney, those expenses and fees shall be the personal liability of the attorney not chargeable to the party. Sanctions shall not be imposed pursuant to this subdivision except on notice contained in a party's papers, or on the court's own noticed motion, and after opportunity to be heard.

(CCP § 396b(b).) 

CCP § 399(a) states:

If the transfer is sought on any ground specified in subdivision (b), (c), (d), or (e) of Section 397, the costs and fees of the transfer, and of filing the papers in the court to which the transfer is ordered, shall be paid at the time the notice of motion is filed by the party making the motion for the transfer. If the transfer is sought solely, or is ordered, because the action or proceeding was commenced in a court other than that designated as proper by this title, those costs and fees, including any expenses and attorney's fees awarded to the defendant pursuant to Section 396b, shall be paid by the plaintiff before the transfer is made.

(CCP § 399(a).) 

            Ford requests attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $1,000 for bringing this motion pursuant to CCP §§ 396b and 399.   The Court grants the request for fees to bring this motion in the reasonable amount of $1,000.  (Sun Decl., ¶6.)  The Court will also direct Plaintiff to pay and/or reimburse the costs associated with transferring the action. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Defendant Ford Motor Company’s motion to transfer venue is granted.  Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees is granted in the amount of $1,000. 

This matter is transferred to the Superior Court for the County of Orange, Santa Ana Courthouse located at 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701.  There, the matter will presumably be assigned to a Department by the Presiding Judge or the clerk acting at his or her direction. The moving party must pay the Los Angeles Superior Court a $50 transfer fee and must determine the filling fee of the Orange County Superior Court and provide the Clerk in Los Angeles County with proof of payment.  The Clerk’s office will print out the entire docket and mail it, along with the check for the filing fee to the Orange County Superior Court.  Defendant Ford Motor Company is ordered to move with deliberate speed to accomplish this transfer.  

Once the appropriate costs have been paid to transfer this action to the Orange County Superior Court, Defendant may submit receipts to Plaintiff’s counsel for reimbursement of the paid transfer costs and Plaintiff is directed to reimburse Defendant within 20 days of receiving the forwarded receipts.

Warning regarding electronic appearances:  All software for remote or electronic appearances is subject to malfunction based on system weakness and human error, which can originate from any of the multiple parties participating each morning. The seamless operation of the Court’s electronic appearance software is dependent on numerous inconstant and fluctuating factors that may impact whether you, or other counsel or the Court itself can be heard in a particular case. Not all these factors are within the control of the courtroom staff. For example, at times, the system traps participants in electronic purgatories where they cannot be heard and where the courtroom staff is not aware of their presence. If you call the courtroom, please be respectful of the fact that a court hearing is going on, and that the courtroom staff is doing their best to use an imperfect system. If it is truly important to you to be heard, please show up to the courtroom in the normal way. Parking is free or reasonable in Burbank.

Defendant shall provide notice of this order.