Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV22431, Date: 2024-12-19 Tentative Ruling

This is an action arising from a motor vehicle accident, which allegedly occurred on or about October 6, 2021. (Compl., ¶ 9.) The complaint alleges that the vehicle accident occurred on a public highway in the County of Los Angeles. (Compl., ¶ 8.)

On September 18, 2023, Plaintiffs Ignacio Flores and Raquel Reyes (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Defendant Silvia Janet Flores (“Defendant”) and DOES 1-50, inclusive, alleging a cause of action for negligence.

On November 5, 2024, Defendant, through her counsel, filed and served a motion to transfer venue. Defendant seeks an order transferring venue of this action to San Bernardino County Superior Court.

On November 25, 2024, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing on the motion from December 5, 2024, to December 19, 2024. (11/25/24 Minute Order.) Counsel for Plaintiffs was ordered to give notice. (11/25/24 Minute Order.)

As of December 17, 2024, the motion is unopposed. Any opposition to the motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) The motion was served on Plaintiffs’ counsel by e-mail. The Court informs Plaintiffs that “[a] failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of a motion.” (Cal. R. Ct., Rule 8.54(c).)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a).) “If the action is for injury to person or personal property . . . or negligence, the superior court in either the county where the injury occurs or . . . the county where the defendants, or some of them reside at the commencement of the action, is a proper court for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a).) On motion, a court may change the place of trial “[w]hen the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subd. (a).)

Defendant’s counsel, Thomas A. Goodwin, Esq. (“Goodwin”), provides a declaration in support of the motion.[1] Mr. Goodwin states the following: this action arises out of an alleged two vehicle accident which occurred on October 6, 2021, on North Sterling Avenue near the intersection of Date Place in the City of San Bernardino, County of San Bernardino, State of California. (Goodwin Decl., ¶ 2.) Defendant informed Mr. Goodwin’s staff that she resided in the City of Highland, California when Plaintiffs commenced this action and that the incident occurred in the County of San Bernardino. (Goodwin Decl., ¶ 4.) Mr. Goodwin indicates that San Bernardino is the proper venue for this action as Plaintiffs’ injuries occurred within San Bernardino County and Defendant resided within San Bernardino County at the time this action was commenced. (Goodwin Decl., ¶ 5.)

The Court finds that venue is proper in San Bernardino County under CCP § 395(a). Defendant resided within San Bernardino County when this action was commenced. Additionally, counsel attests that the alleged motor vehicle accident occurred in San Bernardino County.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose the motion is deemed a waiver to all arguments raised therein as “[c]ontentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.” (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2009) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.)

Based on the foregoing, the Motion for Transfer of Venue filed by Defendant Silvia Janet Flores is GRANTED.

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 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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Court notes that Mr. Goodwin’s declaration contains what the Court believes is a typographical error as it indicates that he is “appearing for Defendant Jacqueline Tuggle.” (Goodwin Decl., ¶ 1.) Such a defendant, however, is not a named party in this action.