Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STCV31213, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV31213    Hearing Date: March 13, 2025    Dept: 72

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPARTMENT 72

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants Richard Stocking (“Stocking”) and Southern California Permanente Medical Group (“SCPMG”), Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (“KFHP”), and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (“KFH”) (collectively, “Kaiser”) move to transfer venue of this matter to Riverside County. 

The Court CONTINUES these matters, and the case management conference and order to show cause currently set for March 28, 2025, to April 15, 2025 at 8:30 a.m.

By no later than March 26, 2025 Defendants shall file a supplemental brief on the issues set forth below.  By no later than April 2, 2025, Plaintiff shall file a response.

The Court is of the view that Plaintiff has filed in the wrong court Government Code § 12965(c)(3).  The case should have been filed in Riverside County.  However, the Court has the following questions not adequately briefed in the parties’ papers:

1.      Has Kaiser waived its right to transfer venue because it failed to move to transfer venue prior to filing an answer?  (See Civil Proc. Code § 396b, subd. (a); Hennigan v. Boren (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 810, 816, and cases cited therein; Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial §§ 3:564-566.)

2.      If Kaiser waived its right to move to transfer venue on the grounds that the case was filed in the wrong court, can the Court relieve Kaiser of its waiver?  Under what standard and showing?

3.      If Kaiser waived its right to move to transfer venue on the grounds that the case was filed in the wrong court, can the Court sua sponte transfer the case to the correct court?  Under what statute and standard?

4.      Defendant Stocking has not waived his right to transfer venue on the grounds that the case was filed in the wrong court.  Assuming Kaiser did waive its rights, should the Court transfer the case against Stocking to Riverside County but keep the case against Kaiser?  In that situation, should the Court stay the current case until the case against Stocking is completed in Riverside County?

5.       Kaiser and Stocking’s arguments based on the “convenience of witnesses” (Civil Proc. Code § 397, subd. (c)) appear to focus only on party and party witnesses, not third party witnesses.  Is this sufficient to justify a change of venue?  (See Rycz v. Superior Court (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 824, 836 [“Generally, ‘the convenience of the parties is not to be considered upon a motion for a change of venue.’”]; Lieberman v. Superior Court  (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 396, 401-402.)

The Court also encourages the parties to meet and confer in an effort to resolve this issue of venue, particularly given the Court’s tentative conclusion that Plaintiff filed in the wrong court.  If the parties cooperatively agree to transfer to Riverside County, they may take the hearing off calendar.