Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV32047, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32047 Hearing Date: July 16, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On September 30, 2022, Plaintiff Nicholas Johnson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Dawn Renaye Murray-Santos (“Murray-Santos”), Mike Santos (“Santos”), Maggie Frederick (“Frederick”), and Does 1-20 for motor vehicle negligence and negligence per se.
On November 16, 2023, the Court dismissed the “Second Cause of Action For Prayer for Punitive Damages” with prejudice at Plaintiff’s request.
Also on November 16, 2023, Murray-Santos and Santos (“Santos Defendants”) filed an answer.
On July 8, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a punitive damage claim. The Court denied the Santos Defendants’ motion to continue the trial and related dates for lack of proper notice.
On July 12, 2024, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. In addition, the Court dismissed Frederick without prejudice at the request of Plaintiff’s counsel.
Trial is currently scheduled for July 24, 2024.
B. This motion
On June 14, 2024, the Santos Defendants filed a motion for change of venue. The motion was set for hearing on July 16, 2024. On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On July 9, 2024, the Santos Defendants filed a reply.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
The Santos Defendants ask the Court to transfer the case to Calaveras County.
Plaintiff asks the Court to deny the motion.
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.
* * *
(Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subds. (a), (c).)
“Even if filed in a ‘proper’ county on appropriate motion, the court has discretionary power to transfer the case to any other county ‘[w]hen the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.’ ” (L. Edmon & C. Karnow, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (Rutter 2023) ¶ 3:553, p. 3-168, citing Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subd. (c) (Cal. Practice Guide).) “The burden of proving both of these conditions is necessarily on the moving party.” (Willingham v. Pecora (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 289, 295 (Willingham).)
“ ‘Convenience of witnesses is shown by the fact that the residence of all the witnesses is in the county to which the transfer of the cause is requested. [Citation.] A conclusion that the ends of justice are promoted can be drawn from the fact that by moving the trial closer to the residence of the witnesses, delay and expense in court proceedings are avoided and savings in the witnesses’ time and expenses are effected.’ ” (Rycz v. Superior Court of San Francisco County (2022) 81 Cal.App. 5th 824, 837 (Rycz), quoting Pearson v. Superior Ct., City & Cty. of San Francisco (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 69, 77.)
“It is only the convenience of nonparty witnesses that is important. Absent extraordinary circumstances [citation], the parties’ conveniences are not considered—even if they are to testify.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 3:555, p. 3-169.) Thus, for example, a defendant cannot obtain a transfer solely on the ground that it will be more expensive or difficult for it to defend the action in the county chosen by the plaintiff. (Ibid.) Convenience of counsel and expert witnesses who have no personal knowledge of any facts in the case are not permissible considerations on a change of venue motion. (Id., ¶¶ 3:556-557, p. 3-169.)
“[W]here a venue is clearly more convenient to most of the witnesses, that alone supports an inference that moving the trial promotes the interests of justice because ‘delay and expense in court proceedings are avoided and savings in the witnesses’ time and expenses are effected.’ ” (Rycz, supra, 81 Cal.App.5th at p. 848.) “Additionally, more general interests of justice are promoted by conducting trial in the venue that has the clearly greater connection to the underlying events. Among other things, ‘ “[t]here is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home” ’ [citation]; ‘ “[j]ury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation” ’ [citation]; maintaining the possibility of ordering in-person testimony in jury trials preserves flexibility for trial courts [citation]; ‘the witnesses would be readily accessible for immediate recall if further testimony was desirable, thus preventing needless delays’ [citation]; and, [if] . . . law enforcement and medical personnel [are] named as potential witnesses, it will benefit the public to minimize the amount of time they are required to be away from work. Generally speaking, conducting trials in the venue most connected to the underlying events contributes to a more fair and efficient system of justice.” (Ibid.)
“Although [Code of Civil Procedure section 397] contains no express time limitation, a motion for change of venue based on convenience of witnesses must be made within a reasonable time after the answer is filed. What constitutes a ‘reasonable time’ rests largely in the trial court’s discretion.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 3:559.5, pp. 3-169 to 3-170; see Willingham, supra, 44 Cal.App.2d at p. 295 [“It is the universal rule in this state that motions of this character must be made within a reasonable time”].) “The grounds for a change of venue may be deemed waived unless presented in a timely motion for transfer in a proper form.” (Cal. Practice Guide, supra, ¶ 3:564, p. 3-170.)
DISCUSSION
The Santos Defendants assert that (1) the accident at issue took place in Calaveras County, (2) at the time of the accident, Murray-Santos resided in Angels Camp, California, (3) Murray-Santos and Santos now reside in Ione, California, (4) at the time of the accident, Plaintiff resided in Sonora, California, (5) Plaintiff may now reside in Jacksonville, Oregon, (6) reporting officer Bryan Grant resides in or is employed in San Andreas, California, and (7) Plaintiff received treatment after the accident in Sonora, California.
Based on these asserted facts, the Santos Defendants contend that (1) Los Angeles is an improper venue under Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (a), and (2) transferring the case to Calaveras County would promote the ends of justice under Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (c).
In response, Plaintiff argues that the motion to transfer venue is untimely. Plaintiff filed the complaint on September 30, 2022. On November 16, 2023, the Santos Defendants filed an answer. But the Santos Defendants did not file a motion for change of venue until almost seven months after their answer, on June 14, 2024.
The Court finds that the Santos Defendants did not file their motion for change of venue under Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (c), within a reasonable time. Therefore, the Court denies the motion to the extent it is based on the convenience of witnesses and promotion of the ends of justice.
The reasonableness requirement does not appear to apply to motions to transfer venue based on a contention that “the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subd. (a).) However, the moving defendant has the burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff’s venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds. (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.)
Here, the Santos Defendants have presented evidence that, at the time of the accident, Murray-Santos resided in Angels Camp, California. (See Murray-Santos dec. ¶ 4.) Although the Santos Defendants’ counsel submitted a declaration stating that Murray-Santos continues to reside in Angels Camp (Wilson dec. ¶ 4), Murray-Santos’s own declaration states that she and Santos currently live in Ione, California. (Murray-Santos dec. ¶¶ 4-5.) The Santos Defendants have presented no evidence about where Murray-Santos, Santos, or Frederick "reside[d] at the commencement of the action” on September 30, 2022. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a).) Therefore, the Santos Defendants have not carried their burden of proving that Plaintiff’s venue selection was not proper under any of the statutory grounds.
The Court denies the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES the motion for change of venue filed by Defendants Dawn Renaye Murray-Santos and Mike Santos.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.