Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 20STCV44141, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV44141, Date: 2025-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV44141 Hearing Date: January 3, 2025 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Hearing Date: 1/3/25¿

CASE NO./NAME: 20STCV44141 ALISHA GARTH, et al. vs MAXIMILLIAN A. HUFF

Moving Party: Defendant Maximillian Huff

Responding Party: Plaintiff¿

Notice: Sufficient¿

Ruling: DENIED

Background

On November 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed the present auto accident case. Defendant filed an answer on February 4, 2021. On December 5, 2024, Defendant moved the Court to change venue to San Diego County, where the car accident allegedly occurred, citing convenience of witnesses. Trial is currently set for January 29, 2025.

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.)

In determining whether the transfer would promote the convenience of the witnesses, the Court is to consider only the convenience of non-party witnesses, and not the convenience of party witnesses and party-affiliated witnesses. (Rios v. Lacey Trucking Co. (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 865, 868-869; Chaffin Cost. Co .v. Maleville Bros. (1957) 155 Cal.App.3d 660, 663 [convenience of party’s employee-witnesses not to be considered].) There are exceptions to this rule which the parties agree are not applicable here. (See Rios, supra, 123 Cal.App.2d at p. 869.) However, if a party intends to call an opposing party’s employees as adverse witnesses, the Court may take the convenience of those witnesses into account. (J.C. Millett Co. v. Latchford-Marble Glass Co. (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 218, 227.)

Timeliness

There is no statutory deadline for filing a motion to transfer venue based on the convenience of witnesses or to promote the ends of justice. However, courts have held that such motions must be made within a reasonable time after the case is at issue on the facts. The determination of what constitutes a "reasonable time" rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. (Cooney v. Cooney, 25 Cal.2d 202, 208.)

In Willingham v. Pecora (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 289, 295 the Court of Appeal held that motions to change venue must be filed within a reasonable time. The Court found that a motion filed nearly one year after the commencement of the action, but less than a month before the trial date, was untimely because the moving party allowed the case to lie dormant for nearly four months before seeking a transfer. Furthermore, the court held that the delay would have caused a 5-month postponement of the trial and would not promote the ends of justice.

Discussion

This personal injury action arises from a two-car motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 30, 2019, in La Mesa, California, at the intersection of Quarry Road and Riviera Drive, located in San Diego County. Plaintiff filed the case on November 17, 2020. Defendant now seeks to transfer venue to San Diego County after four years of litigation, just days before the trial scheduled for January 29, 2025.

The Court finds that the motion was not made within a reasonable time nor would it promote the ends of justice. First, this case has been at issue for over four years. The residence of witnesses presumably should have been discovered long ago, yet Defendant has not explained why this motion is being made on the eve of trial. Second, Defendant has failed to identify any non-party witnesses who will be incovenienced. Defendant merely asserts that both Defendant and witnesses reside in San Diego County and would be inconvenienced by a trial in Los Angeles. Without knowing the number of non-party witnesses, their locations, their schedules, the nature of their testimony and whether they are essential to the case , the Court cannot adequately assess the extent of any inconvenience to the witnesses.

Third, this case is approaching its five-year statutory deadline, and this motion is being heard just 15 days before the trial date. Granting the motion at this stage would undoubtedly cause a delay in the trial, potentially pushing the action beyond the five-year deadline, which could result in dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310. Further, by granting the motion at such a late date, the Court would put the San Diego Superior Court in a position of having to ensure resources for this case to go to trial in a short time; that is unfair to that court.

The present case presents an even more egregious delay than in Willingham v. Pecora. In Willingham, the motion to change venue was filed nearly one year after the commencement of the action and less than a month before trial, with the Court finding the delay unreasonable due to a four-month period of dormancy and the potential for a five-month postponement of the trial. Here, however, Defendant waited over four years before filing the motion, allowing the case to proceed through extensive litigation and only raising the issue on the eve of trial, just 15 days before the scheduled trial date. Unlike in Willingham, where at least some explanation of witness inconvenience was provided, Defendant has failed to identify specific non-party witnesses, their locations, or their availability, leaving the Court unable to assess the inconvenience alleged. Furthermore, the delay in this case risks extending the action beyond the five-year statutory deadline, a consequence far more severe than the delay considered in Willingham. Accordingly, the court denies the motion as it was not filed within reasonable time and would not promote ends of justice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept27@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.