Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV08323, Date: 2024-08-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV08323    Hearing Date: August 6, 2024    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (“MBUSA”) moves for an order transferring this case to Orange county for purposes of pre-trial discovery and trial.

The Court GRANTS MBUSA’s motion and ORDERS this action TRANSFERRED to the Orange County Superior Court.  Plaintiff shall pay the costs of the transfer.

Background

This is a Song-Beverley action.

On September 3, 2021, Plaintiffs Hana Bagomaan and Mohammed Bagomaan (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) purchased the vehicle that is the subject of this action (the “Vehicle”) as a certified pre-owned vehicle from Fletcher Jones Motor Cars, Inc., (“Fletcher Jones”). (Remillard Decl., Ex. B.) Fletcher Jones is located in Newport Beach, California, which is in Orange County.

As part of the purchase contract, Plaintiffs completed an application for registration of the Vehicle, which listed Plaintiffs’ address as “40 Ebb Tide Circle, Newport Beach, CA.” (Remillard Decl., Ex. C.)

Between the time Plaintiffs purchased the Vehicle and April 8, 2023 (the last time it was presented to an MBUSA-authorized repair facility), the Vehicle was brought in for service or repairs a total of 5 times, all of which were at Fletcher Jones in Newport Beach. (Remillard Decl., Ex. D.)

Plaintiff filed this action on April 2, 2024, raising claims under the Song-Beverley Act for defects in the Vehicle.

MBUSA moved for venue transfer on July 5, 2024. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Legal Standard

The proper place for trial is fixed by statute and “venue may be proper in more than one county, depending on the particular facts of a case.” (Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 309, 313.) “Generally, when venue is proper in more than one county, a plaintiff has the choice of where to file the action from among the available options.” (Ibid.) 

“There is a presumption that the county in which the plaintiff chose to file the action is the proper county. [Citation.] The burden rests on the party seeking a change of venue to defeat the plaintiff’s presumptively correct choice of court. [Citation.]” (Id. at pp. 313-314.) (See also Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 396, 401 (Lieberman) [same burden for motion based on convenience of witness grounds].) 

“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 … shall … transfer it to the proper court or court location, on its own motion, or on motion of the defendant, unless the defendant consents in writing, or in open court (consent in open court being entered in the minutes of the court), to the keeping of the action or proceeding in the court or court location where commenced.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 369a, subd. (b).)

“The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases:

(a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.

(b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein.

(c) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

(d) When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 397.)

“Except as otherwise provided by law and subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, 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… Subject to [Code of Civil Procedure, Section 395, subd. (b)], if a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, the superior court in the county where the obligation is to be performed, where the contract in fact was entered into, or where the defendant or any defendant resides at the commencement of the action is a proper court for the trial of an action founded on that obligation, and the county where the obligation is incurred is the county where it is to be performed, unless there is a special contract in writing to the contrary…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a).)

“Subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, in an action arising from an offer or provision of goods, services, loans or extensions of credit intended primarily for personal, family or household use … 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 Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (b).)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395.5.)

Discussion

This case involves a vehicle which was purchased in Orange County. The contract governing the sale and applicable warranties was signed in Orange county. At the time of the contract, Plaintiffs lived in Orange County. To the best of MBUSA’s current knowledge, Plaintiffs still reside in Orange County.

MBUSA’s headquarters is not located in Los Angeles county. (Remillard Decl., ¶ 3.)

At trial MBUSA intends to call Plaintiffs, all advisors involved in the sale of the Vehicle, and all service technicians who performed repairs on the Vehicle during Plaintiffs’ ownership. All of the advisors and service technicians are affiliated with Fletcher Jones, which is located in Orange County. Plaintiffs live in Orange County. These witnesses will likely also be the key witnesses in Plaintiffs’ case because they are the ones who will have firsthand knowledge about the Vehicle’s alleged defects.

The evidence shows that the Los Angeles County Superior Court is not the proper court for this action. Transfer is thus mandated by Code of Civil Procedure, section 396a, subd. (b). Furthermore, the convenience of witnesses would be promoted by the transfer to Orange County, warranting transfer under Code of Civil Procedure, section 397, subd. (c).

The Court therefore grants MBUSA’s motion and orders this action transferred to the Orange County Superior Court.