Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV01313, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV01313    Hearing Date: August 28, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

The County’s motion to transfer is GRANTED.

            On 1/20/2023, Plaintiff Sean Renaud (Petitioner) filed a verified petition against the County of Los Angeles (County) seeking a writ of mandate.

            Now, the County moves to transfer this action to the Writs and Receivers Department.

Factual Background

Through this petition, Petitioner is challenging discipline imposed upon him by his employer, the Los Angeles County Fire Department (the Department). He seeks for the Court to set aside the discipline.

Discussion

            The County argues that the Local Rules require assignment of this proceeding to the Writs and Receivers Department.

            The Court agrees.

Under Local Rule 2.8 (d), the following matters are assigned to Departments 82, 85 or 86: “Mandate, petition for writ of (except where assigned to the Appellate Division by these rules).” Rule 2.8 (d) also states, “See Local Rule 2.9.” Local Rule 2.8.

Local Rule 2.9 states in pertinent part:

Subject to the authority of the Presiding Judge to apportion the work of the court, the following actions, proceedings, and procedures are assigned in the CENTRAL DISTRICT (Stanley Mosk Courthouse) as follows. These assignments do not apply to matters heard in the other districts or in the Complex Litigation departments.

Matters assigned to Department 82, 85, or 86 (the “writs and receivers departments”) for all purposes pursuant to Local Rule 2.8 will be assigned by the clerk at the time of filing, using a random system to ensure that no party or person can control or determine the department to which a case will be assigned.

            Here, Petitioner is asking the Court to “set aside its discipline of Renaud and remove all discipline regarding such from his personnel file.” (Motion to Transfer, 4: 23-27.) Moreover, Petitioner expressly seeks a writ of mandate. “Mandamus, rather than mandatory injunction, is the traditional remedy for the failure of a public official to perform a legal duty. [Citations] Thus, the legal principles governing judicial compulsion of official acts have developed under the rubric of mandamus rather than injunction.” (TransparentGov Novato v. City of Novato (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 140, 148 n.5.)

            In opposition, Plaintiff does not offer any substantive legal analysis to dispute any of Defendant’s substantive or procedural points. 

Motions to transfer or to change venue may be brought on the grounds that the action was filed in the wrong court, or that the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change in venue. (CCP §396b and §397.) Analogously, Code of Civil Procedure §397 applies to any action or proceeding. (Richfield Hotel Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 222-225.)

Based on the foregoing, the County’s motion to transfer is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.