Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV16696, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV16696 Hearing Date: February 29, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers and notice of non-opposition, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On May 19, 2022, Plaintiffs Trevor Daniel Litteral, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem Aaron Litteral, Ernest Litteral, and Rebecca Litteral, all in their individual capacities and as heirs and successors-in-interest to Amy Litteral, filed this action against Defendants Postmates, LLC (“Postmates”), Hertz Vehicles, LLC (“Hertz”), Joshua Asimovic Morris (“Morris”), Sarina Christine Cameron (“Cameron”), and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle tort, general negligence, and survival action.
On November 30, 2023, Hertz filed an answer.
Also on November 30, 2023, Hertz filed a motion to transfer venue to Riverside County, to be heard on January 22, 2024. On January 8, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a notice of non-opposition. The Court continued the hearing on the motion to February 29, 2024.
No trial date is currently scheduled.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Hertz asks the Court to transfer the case to the Superior Court of the State of California, Riverside County.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 395, subdivision (a), provides in part:
“(a) 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. . . .”
(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.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subds. (a), (c).)
DISCUSSION
Hertz asks the Court to transfer the case to Riverside County because the Los Angeles County Superior Court is not the proper court and because transfer would promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice.
It is undisputed that the accident giving rise to this case took place in Riverside County and some of the defendants lived in Riverside County when Plaintiffs filed their complaint. Therefore, Riverside County is a proper court to hear the action and transfer would promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Hertz Vehicles, LLC’s motion to transfer venue to Riverside County. The Court transfers the case to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside. The Court orders Plaintiffs to pay the costs and fees of transferring the action to Riverside County within 30 days after service of notice of the transfer order.
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.