Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV00798, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV00798, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00798 Hearing Date: January 3, 2024 Dept: C

Mendoza v. hyundai

CASE NO.: 23NWCV00798

HEARING: 1/3/24 @ 10:30 AM

Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Hyundai Motor America (Defendant) moves to transfer venue to Orange County.

Background

On March 16, 2023, Plaintiff Elena Mendoza (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against Defendant for violations of the Song-Beverly Act for failure to repair or repurchase Plaintiff’s vehicle.

Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff’s Objections Nos. 1-5 are overruled.

Legal Standard

“The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases … (a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (CCP § 397.)

Discussion

Here, Defendants argue that the case should be transferred to Orange County for trial because Orange County is a more convenient forum for the witnesses of the case.

Defendant argues that Los Angeles County is not a proper venue for the case. “A corporation or association may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases.” (CP § 395.5) First, the contract was entered into in Orange County. Plaintiff argues that the Warranty is separate from the Retail Installment Sales Contract (RISC). However, despite the Warranty being a separate agreement for the purposes of compelling arbitration, it does not follow that the Warranty would be entered into in a different location than the RISC. Further, Plaintiff does not explain why the fact that the Warranty is a separate agreement for the purposes of compelling arbitration supports Los Angeles being the proper venue. The Warranty was effective on purchase and Plaintiff does not dispute that she purchased the vehicle in Orange County. Further, Plaintiff is a resident of Orange County. Thus, the Warranty contract was made in Orange County. Second, the obligation or breach arose in Orange County. Plaintiff purchased her vehicle and presented her vehicle for repair in Orange County. Third, Defendant’s principal place of business is 10550 Talbert Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. Thus, venue is not proper in Los Angeles County. Therefore, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue to Orange County is granted.

Sanctions

“In its discretion, the court may order the payment to the prevailing party of reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in making or resisting the motion to transfer whether or not that party is otherwise entitled to recover his or her costs of action. In determining whether that order for expenses and fees shall be made, the court shall take into consideration (1) whether an offer to stipulate to change of venue was reasonably made and rejected, and (2) whether the motion or selection of venue was made in good faith given the facts and law the party making the motion or selecting the venue knew or should have known. As between the party and his or her attorney, those expenses and fees shall be the personal liability of the attorney not chargeable to the party. Sanctions shall not be imposed pursuant to this subdivision except on notice contained in a party's papers, or on the court's own noticed motion, and after opportunity to be heard.” (CCP § 396b(b).)

Here, Defendant has not filed its Motion within the time limit provided by CCP § 396b(a), therefore, no sanctions are awarded. Unlike CCP § 397 which has no time requirement, CCP § 396b(a) requires that the motion be filed “at the time he or she answers, demurs, or moves to strike ….” Defendant answered on April 21, 2023 and filed its Motion on August 3, 2023. Thus, the Motion was not filed within the time limits of CCP § 396b. Therefore, sanctions cannot be awarded under CCP § 396b. Further, CCP § 397 does not provide for an award of sanctions. Thus, Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED. Defendant’s request for sanctions is DENIED.