Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 24STCV01159, Date: 2024-08-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01159    Hearing Date: August 13, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to transfer is GRANTED.

            On 1/16/2024, Plaintiff Erika Belcher (Plaintiff) filed suit against Victorville Treasure Holdings, L.L.C. d/b/a Holiday Inn Victorville Treasure AESP Holdings, LLC d/b/a Holiday Inn Victorville, Benjamin Gonzalez, and Rosalie Medrano (collectively, Defendants), alleging: (1) failure to provide meal breaks; (2) failure to provide rest breaks; (3) failure to pay wages; (4) failure to pay overtime; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (7) discrimination; (8) sex/gender discrimination; (9) failure to prevent; (10) failure to provide reasonable accommodation; (11) failure to engage in the interactive process; (12) wrongful termination; (13) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (14) violation of California Pregnancy Disability Leave Law; (15) retaliation; (16) violation of Labor Code section 226.7; (17) sexual harassment; (18) hostile work environment; (19) retaliation; and (20) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

            On 7/16/2024, Defendants moved to transfer venue to the Civil Division of the San Bernardino District, Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, courthouse.

Legal Standard

 Code of Civil Procedure section 397 provides that “the court may, on motion, change the place of trial . . . [w]hen the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.” “A motion for a change of venue, grounded upon the convenience of witnesses, rests in the discretion of the trial court.” (Blossom v. Waller (1916) 30 Cal.App. 439, 441.) The party moving to change an action’s venue has the burden of proving that both convenience of witnesses and ends of justice will be thereby promoted. (Prewitt v. Prewitt (1954) 128 Cal.App2d 344, 346.) The motion must be accompanied by declarations that establish a substantial factual basis for granting the motion based on “convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice.” (Juneau v. Juneau (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 14, 16.) 

Discussion

            Defendants argue that venue is not proper in Los Angeles County because: (1) none of the defendants are residents of Los Angeles County, California (2) because Plaintiff’s claims and the occurrences and transactions arose in San Bernardino County, California; and (3) all nonparty witnesses reside in San Bernardino County, California and it would be inconvenient for them to travel to Los Angeles County.

            After review, the Court agrees.

Generally, "[v]enue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made." (See Cholakian & Associates v. Superior Court (2015) 236 CA4th 361, 367.)

Once a defendant demonstrates that it is not a resident of the plaintiffs chosen venue, "the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the case comes clearly within one of the statutory exceptions to the general rule that actions are triable in the place of the defendant's residence." (Archer v. Superior Court of Humboldt County (1962) 202 CA2d 417, 420.)  Plaintiff does not dispute that all Defendants and witnesses reside in San Bernardino County and this is where Plaintiff was employed, other than to indicate Los Angeles is Defendant’s corporate address.

Actions are triable in the county where the injury occurred. CCP §395(a). CCP section 395 states, in relevant part, "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." CCP §395.

Here, all Defendants reside in San Bernardino County. All of Plaintiff’s claims under the Complaint arose during her employment in San Bernadino County. As such, all of the nonparties witnesses that Defendants will call at trial reside and work in San Bernardino County.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the ends of justice and convenience of witnesses would be best served if venue was transferred to San Bernadino County. (Blossom, supra, 30 Cal.App. at p. 441.)

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

 It is so ordered.

Dated:  August    , 2024

   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.