Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 20STCV40546, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 20STCV40546, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV40546 Hearing Date: March 19, 2024 Dept: C

Jesse Simpson vs Loma Linda University Medical Center, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV40546

Hearing Date: March 19, 2024 @ 9:30 AM

Tentative Ruling

Defendant Loma Linda University Shared Services’ Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED.

Plaintiff to give notice.

Loma Linda University Shared Services (“LLUSS”) moves for an order transferring venue of the instant action to the Superior Court of San Bernardino County.

Background

Plaintiff filed his complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court on October 22, 2020. (Jacobsen Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) The complaint alleges nine causes of action: assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, false imprisonment, violations of Civil Code sections 51.7 and 52.1, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision. (Id.) The complaint originally named ten defendants, consisting of two corporate entities and eight individuals. Each of these defendants filed their respective answers between January 28, 2021, and July 22, 2021. (Id. ¶ 3.)

On June 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the complaint substituting in LLUSS to replace “Doe 1.” (Jacobsen Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiff served the amendment on LLUSS on July 31, 2023. (Id. ¶ 5.) LLUSS has yet to file its answer.

This is the second time a motion to transfer venue has been made in this case.

Legal Standard

“[T]he 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. If the action is for injury to the person … 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(a).)

On timely motion, the court must order a transfer of venue “when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 396b, 397(a).) A motion to transfer venue on grounds the designated court is not proper must be filed and served before or at the time of filing an answer, demurer, or motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., § 396b.) “Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made.” (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482; Haurat v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [“Venue is determined on the basis of the complaint as it stands at the time the motion to change is made, and the plaintiff is not permitted to make a subsequent election of theories by proposed amendments thereto”].)

The burden is on the moving party to establish facts justifying the transfer. (Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court¿(1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 928.) Absent “an affirmative showing to the contrary, the presumption is that the county in which the title of the action shows that it is brought is, prima facie, the proper county for the commencement and trial of the action.” (Ibid.; Fontaine v. Superior Court¿(2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.) The moving party may submit declarations containing admissible evidence in support of the motion to transfer venue. (Mission Imports, supra, 31 Cal.3d at p. 928.)

Discussion

1. Is the motion timely?

The Court denied a previous Motion to Transfer Venue on December 7, 2023, on the grounds that it was untimely. The Court determined that Defendants failed to explain why they waited two and one-half years (from the filing of the original complaint) to file the motion.

It is undisputed that the instant Motion to Transfer Venue was filed before the deadline for LLUSS to file a responsive pleading, and before LLUSS filed an answer. Therefore, the motion is timely. (CCP § 396b(a).)

2. Is venue proper in San Bernardino County?

There is a long-standing policy of law favoring and safeguarding a defendant's right to defend in his county of residence and construing section 396b in light of that policy. “The right of a defendant to have an action brought against him tried in the county in which he has his residence is an ancient and valuable right, which has always been safeguarded by statute and is supported by a long line of judicial decisions. The right of a plaintiff to have an action tried in another county than that in which the defendant has his residence is exceptional, and, if the plaintiff would claim such right, he must bring himself within the terms of the exception.” (Cholakian & Associates v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 361, 371.)

“Upon the hearing of the [motion to transfer venue], the court shall, if it appears that the action or proceeding was not commenced in the proper court, order the action or proceeding transferred to the proper court.” (CCP § 396b(a), italics added.)

Here, LLUSS is a resident of San Bernadino County. Plaintiff argues that venue remains proper in this court because Los Angeles County is where Defendant Martinez resides. Venue is proper in “the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside.” (CCP § 395(a).) Plaintiff contends that Los Angeles County is where Defendant Martinez currently resides, where he was personally served, and where he has received his mail and has renewed his license.

LLUSS argues that the relevant inquiry is where Defendant Martinez resided at the commencement of the action. (CCP § 395(a).) This lawsuit was filed on October 22, 2020. LLUSS has submitted persuasive evidence that Defendant Martinez lived in San Bernardino County at that time. (Martinez Decl., April 24, 2023, ¶ 3; Rankin Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A, 16:16-22.) The evidence submitted by Plaintiff does not prove otherwise. The Court determines that at the commencement of this action, Defendant Martinez lived in San Bernardino County and no defendant lived in Los Angeles County. Therefore, venue is proper in San Bernardino County.

3. May the Court exercise discretion to retain the case in Los Angeles County for the convenience of witnesses?

Plaintiff argues that the motion must fail on the merits because it “does not meet the evidentiary burden required for a discretionary transfer of venue under Code of Civil Procedure section 397(c).” (Opp., p. 7:4-6, italics added.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to present any evidence demonstrating either the inconvenience of any witness or that the ends of justice would be served by a change of venue.

However, a court “will not entertain a motion for change of venue on the ground of convenience of witnesses when the defendant has not filed an answer, for the reason that until the issues are joined the court cannot determine what testimony will be material. [Citation.] For the same reason, a motion for change of venue cannot be defeated on the ground of convenience of witnesses until an answer is filed. (Cholakian & Associates v. Superior Court, supra, 236 Cal.App.4th at 368.)

Plaintiff opposes transfer on grounds relevant to discretionary transfer under CCP § 397(c). Those grounds are not relevant here. Transfer of venue to San Bernardino County is mandatory under CCP § 396b(a) because the motion is timely, and no defendant lived in Los Angeles County at the commencement of the action.

Accordingly, LLUSS’ Motion to Transfer Venue to San Bernardino County is GRANTED.