Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV03336, Date: 2023-03-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV03336 Hearing Date: March 23, 2023 Dept: 27
SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT
LAURA TEMPLE, Plaintiff, vs.
ACTION WATER SPORTS OF INCLINE
VILLAGE, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
|
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
|
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT
ACTION WATER SPORTS OF INCLINE VILLAGE, LLC’S MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE
Dept. 27 1:30 p.m. March 23, 2023 |
I. BACKGROUND
On
January 27, 2022, plaintiff Laura Temple (“Plaintiff”) filed this action
against defendants Action Water Sports of Incline Village, LLC (“AWS”), Gary
Scott, David Ceruti, E.B. (collectively, “Rental Defendants”), and Michael
Goodwin (“Goodwin”), Zakaria Stour (“Stour”), Shawn Willette (“Willette”), and
Brenda Poot (“Poot”) for personal injuries arising from a boating accident that
occurred on Lake Tahoe in an area near Chimney Beach Cove. Chimney Beach Cove is located within Carson
City County, Nevada.
According
to the Complaint, Goodwin, Stour, Willette, Poot (hereinafter, the “Group”),
and Plaintiff were Hyatt Hotel work colleagues.
On August 4, 2020, Plaintiff and the Group decided to rent a motorboat
from AWS to go swimming or tubing on Lake Tahoe. Plaintiff was swimming behind the boat rental
at the time of the incident. Either
Goodwin or Willette started the engine and put the boat into reverse. As the boat reversed, Plaintiff was sucked
into the propeller area and sustained severe lacerations to her body. At the time of filing the Complaint, Willette
and Poot were residents of the County of Los Angeles, California.
Plaintiff
asserts two causes of action against Rental Defendants: negligence and
violations of Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”) 488.730. Plaintiff alleges Rental Defendants breached
their duty of care by failing, among other things, to provide adequate
instructions and safety briefings to the Group so that the recreational boat
rental could be safely operated.
On
October 28, 2022, AWS filed this motion for change of venue arguing a change of
venue will serve the convenience of non-party witnesses who reside in Nevada. Plaintiff filed an opposition and AWS filed a
reply.
II. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
AWS submits twelve objections to Exhibits
7-18 which are attached to the Declaration of Carlos F. Llinas Negret and cited
in Plaintiff’s opposition. The
objections are sustained. (Evid. Code., §§
210, 350, 352, 1200.) However, even if
the Court were to consider the information, it would not change the outcome.
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
In a personal injury case, the superior court
in either the county where the injury occurs or the county where defendants
reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of
the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 395,
subd. (a).)
The court may change the place of trial when
the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the
change. (Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subd. (c).) The moving party has the burden of proving both
conditions in Section 397, subdivision (c).
(Ryez v. Superior Court of San Francisco Cty. (2022) 81
Cal.App.5th 824, 836.) “Before the convenience of witnesses may be considered as
a ground for an order granting a change of venue it must be shown that their
proposed testimony is admissible, relevant and material to some issue in the
case as shown by the record before the court. [Citation.] The declaration or
declarations supporting the motion should set forth the names of the
witnesses, the nature of the testimony expected from each, and the reasons why
the attendance of each would be inconvenient. [Citation.]” (Rycz v. Superior Court of San Francisco County
(2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 824, 836, citations and quotations omitted.) “The convenience of witnesses whose testimony
will be merely cumulative is entitled to little consideration.” (Corfee v. S. California Edison Co. (1962)
202 Cal.App.2d 473, 477.) Further, the
court does not consider as a factor the inconvenience of the parties to attend
trial in deciding a motion to change venue. (Wrin v. Ohlandt (1931) 213 Cal. 158,
160.)
IV. DISCUSSION
A.
AWS’s Arguments
AWS
brings this motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision
(c). AWS argues the Motion should be
granted under section 397 because four of five nonparty witnesses AWS intends
to call at trial to testify are residents of Nevada, and the fifth is a
resident of South Lake Tahoe, in El Dorado County, California. Further, the subject incident occurred in Lake
Tahoe, near Chimney Beach Cove. Thus, changing
the venue to a California county such as El Dorado
County or Placer County, which are each closer to where the alleged
incident occurred, would convenience the nonparty witnesses and promote the
ends of justice.
In
support, AWS submits the declarations of the five nonparty witnesses—Tray
Palmer, Joanne Palmer, Anthony Taylor, Jake Kreamer, and Chris Lucas, and the declaration of Ian A.
King II, AWS’s counsel.
1.
Declarations of Tray Palmer, Joanne
Palmer, and Anthony Taylor:
Tray,
Joanne, and Anthony
were in a nearby vessel when Plaintiff was allegedly struck by the propeller. Each of them observed the events immediately
leading up to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. Each declarant is a resident of Washoe County,
Nevada. Tray and Joanne Palmer declare
they would be inconvenienced if they were to travel to Los Angeles County to
testify. Anthony Taylor objects to
traveling to Los Angeles because he is in poor health and resides out of state. Each declarant states they are prepared to
attend and participate in the trial if it were to take place in El Dorado County
or Placer County.
2.
Declaration of Jake Kreamer:
Kreamer declares he is a resident
of Lyon
County,
Nevada. Kreamer was the lead investigator
of the incident and spoke individually with defendants Goodwin, Willette, and
Stour. Kreamer further declares that he
will be inconvenienced if were to travel over 450 miles to testify in Los
Angeles. However, he is prepared to
attend and participate in the trial if it were to take place in El Dorado
County or Placer County.
3. Declaration of Chris Lucas.
Lucas is a resident of El Dorado County,
California. At the time of the incident,
he was employed by the Tahoe Douglas Fire Protection District 23. While acting within the scope of his employment,
Lucas took Plaintiff from Chimney Bach and transported her to Sand Harbor where
she could be air-lifted to a medical center in Reno, Nevada. Lucas states he would be inconvenienced if he
had to travel several hundred miles to testify in this action.
4. Declaration of Ian A. King II:
King declares, in relevant part, that all five
witnesses will be
called to testify regarding the foregoing events.
B.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
Plaintiff
argues that AWS’s motion should be denied because (1) four of
AWS’s witnesses are
Nevada residents and thus are not subject to the subpoena of any California
Court, (2) the testimony of the witnesses can be provided remotely, (3) the
testimony of three of AWS’s witnesses are cumulative and largely immaterial,
and (4) Kreamer’s investigative report is replete with hearsay and his opinions
are not admissible, (5) Lucas’s declaration does not show how the testimony he
would provide at trial would assist in this litigation, and (6) none of the
AWS’s witnesses can provide testimony on Plaintiff’s specific claims against
AWS.[1] Further, Plaintiff submits her declaration
and the declaration of Stour to show they would be inconvenienced by a change
of venue.
Plaintiff relies on J. C. Millet
Co. v. Latchford-Marble Glass Co. (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 218 (J. C.
Millet) for the proposition that a pledge to attend trial is properly
rejected by the Court when the potential witnesses are beyond the court’s
subpoena power. However, Plaintiff’s
reliance on J. C. Millet is misplaced.
The Court of Appeal held that “the trial court was warranted in
rejecting [defendants’ counsel’s] pledge” of four nonparty employees at trial
because “defendants themselves had no way of assuring their attendance at the
time of trial.” (J. C. Millet, 167
Cal.App.2d at p. 228.) Here, AWS’s out-of-state
witnesses themselves, and not AWS’s counsel, declare their readiness to attend
trial if the venue is changed to El Dorado County or
Placer County in California. AWS’s
out-of-state witnesses may not be subject to any California courts’ subpoena
power; however, their representation that they will attend trial in El Dorado
County or Placer County makes them viable witnesses and willing participants in
the trial. They have stated their
positions under oath and the Court has no reason to doubt their willingness to
participate in the trial.[2]
Plaintiff argues that remote technology
alleviates the inconvenience of the non-party witnesses. “[T]he availability of remote testimony is a
circumstance that may ease the inconvenience for any witnesses that live in a location
distant from the site of trial, but it is not a proper basis for denying a
motion to transfer a case to the county where most witnesses are located.” (Rycz, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at
p. 843.)
Ultimately, while the case was
properly filed in Los Angeles, none of the witnesses or even the parties reside
in Los Angeles.
While the Court has considered Plaintiff’s
and Stour’s declarations, it is well settled that the convenience of the
parties is not a factor to be considered in the change of venue calculus. (See Wrin, supra, 213 Cal. at p.
160.)
Plaintiff lodges several challenges to
the testimony of AWS’s nonparty witnesses.
As indicated above, Plaintiff argues the proffered testimony is either
cumulative, inadmissible, or irrelevant.
Although a review of the declarations of Tray Palmer, Joanne Palmer, and
Anthony Taylor supports Plaintiff’s contention that the testimony is somewhat
cumulative, the relevance, admissibility, and importance of their testimony is
obvious. After all, Tray, Joanne and
Anthony were present when Plaintiff sustained her injuries in the boating
incident.
As
to nonparty witnesses Kreamer and Lucas, Kreamer investigated the subject
incident and Lucas aided in Plaintiff’s emergency transport to receive medical
attention. Their testimony is admissible
and relevant to the issues. The Court
considers the convenience of witnesses when it is shown that their “proposed testimony is admissible,
relevant and material to some issue in the case as shown by the record
before the court.” (Rycz, supra,
at p. 836.)
Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds the
convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice are promoted by the change of
venue. (Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subd. (c).)
V. CONCLUSION
Accordingly,
AWS’s motion for change of venue is GRANTED.
The
Court will hear from counsel regarding which location is preferable: El Dorado County or Placer County.
The
Court’s tentative ruling is also contingent upon Defendant posting of the fees
for the change of venue.
Moving
party to give notice.
Parties
who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at
SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention
to submit on the tentative as directed by
the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all
other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the
hearing to argue. If the Court does not
receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling
and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion,
adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Dated this 23rd day of March 2023
|
|
|
Hon. Kerry Bensinger Judge of the Superior Court |
[1] Plaintiff also argues she will not receive a fair trial in El
Dorado County or Placer County. Plaintiff
anchors this argument on the articles submitted as exhibits. The Court sustained AWS’s objections to this evidence.
Nonetheless, even if the Court were to consider the articles, their evidentiary
value is so slight and the arguments based thereon are so speculative that consideration
of the articles would not change the outcome of the ruling.
[2] While Plaintiff argues a California court cannot
compel these witnesses to attend trial in either El Dorado or Placer County,
the same is certainly true for Los Angeles.
The difference between these two locations (Los Angeles versus El Dorado/Placer
County), however, is that the witnesses are willing to travel to El Dorado or
Placer County and are not willing to travel to Los Angeles. Given this formulation, the answer is readily
apparent: transfer the case to El Dorado or Placer County.