Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV37524, Date: 2023-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV37524    Hearing Date: October 11, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff Blanca Canales (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Joshua Medical Center, Cerritos Prop Holdings, AMPAC Management Group Inc., Cerritos Property Holdings, and Does 1-50 for negligence. 

On May 25, 2023, Defendant Cerritos Property Holdings LLC, erroneously sued as Joshua Medical Center, Cerritos Prop Holdings, and Cerritos Property Holdings (“Cerritos Property Holdings LLC”), filed a motion for change of venue to be heard on October 11, 2023.  No opposition has been filed. 

No trial date is currently scheduled. 

PARTY’S REQUEST 

Cerritos Property Holdings LLC requests that the Court transfer the case to the Superior Court of the State of California, Orange County. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

          Code of Civil Procedure section 395, subdivision (a), provides in part: 

“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. If the action is for injury to person or personal property or for death from wrongful act or negligence, the superior court in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury causing death 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. . . . If any person is improperly joined as a defendant or has been made a defendant solely for the purpose of having the action tried in the superior court in the county where he or she resides, his or her residence shall not be considered in determining the proper place for the trial of the action.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a).) 

          Code of Civil Procedure section 397 provides in part: 

“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. 

* * * 

(c) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. . . .” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subds. (a), (c).) 

          “A motion for transfer on the ground that the action was filed in an ‘improper’ court (mandatory transfer) must be made within the time permitted to plead; i.e., 30 days after service, unless extended by stipulation or court order.”  (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 3:564, p. 3-170, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 396b (Cal. Practice Guide).) 

DISCUSSION 

In her complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 21, 2019, at the “subject location,” Defendants negligently, carelessly, and recklessly owned, operated, maintained, supervised, cleaned and managed the “premises” by failing to provide safe flooring, creating a dangerous and hazardous condition.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew or should have known about the dangerous condition but did not warn Plaintiff or remedy the condition, causing Plaintiff to suffer injuries. 

The complaint states that “the subject location” was in Los Angeles County but does not provide an address. 

In its motion for a change of venue, Cerritos Property Holdings LLC argues that Plaintiff was injured in Orange County, not Los Angeles.  Cerritos Property Holdings LLC also argues that Orange County is the location of the “only proper defendant” in the case, itself.  According to Cerritos Property Holdings LLC, it “appears that” Plaintiff named AMPAC Management Group Inc. solely to create venue in Los Angeles County. 

“The burden is on the moving party to establish whatever facts are needed to justify transfer.  Normally this requires declarations containing admissible evidence.”  (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 3:573, p. 3-172.)  “As the moving party, defendant must overcome the presumption that plaintiff has selected a proper venue . . . .”  (Id., ¶ 3:574, p. 3-172.) 

Accordingly, Cerritos Property Holdings LLC has the burden of proving (1) Plaintiff was injured at a location in Orange County, not Los Angeles as the complaint alleges and (2) Plaintiff named AMPAC Management Group Inc. solely to create venue in Los Angeles County.  Cerritos Property Holdings LLC asserts that (1) it owns a building known as the Joshua Medical Center in Orange County, (2) AMPAC Management Group Inc. has no connection to that building, and (3) Cerritos Property Holdings LLC was served at the Orange County building.  Although Cerritos Property Holdings LLC has raised questions about the appropriateness of venue in Los Angeles County, it has not carried its burden of proving venue in Los Angeles is improper. 

The Court denies the motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES Defendant Cerritos Property Holdings LLC's motion for change of venue without prejudice. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.