Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV02961, Date: 2023-12-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV02961    Hearing Date: December 11, 2023    Dept: 30

ANA MARCELA DOMIGUEZ MARIN, et al. vs PATRICIA HUGHES FUDGE, et al

Motion to Transfer Venue

TENTATIVE

Defendant Patricia Hughes Fudge’s unopposed motion to change venue is GRANTED. Defendant is to pay transfer fee and take the necessary steps with Court to effectuate transfer.  Moving party to give notice.

Background

On January 25, 2022, Plaintiffs Ana Marcela Dominguez Marin and Juan Sebastian Flores Dominguez filed a complaint against Defendants Patricia Hughes, Linh Phuong, and Lam Van Le, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle negligence and negligence per se. This case arises out of a vehicle collision that occurred on February 5, 2020.

On October 23, 2023, Defendant Fudge filed this motion to change venue. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

“Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made.” (Brown v. Superior Court of Alameda County (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482.) Plaintiff’s choice of venue is presumptively correct, and Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that venue is not proper there. (Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 309, 313-14.)

Where a complaint alleges injury to a person or personal property, venue is proper where some or all of the defendants reside. (Code Civ. Proc. § 395.) Where a complaint alleges personal injury “from wrongful act or negligence . . . the county where the injury occurs . . . shall be a proper county for the trial of the action.” (Cacciaguidi v. Superior Court (1990) 226 Cal.App.3d 181, 184-185.)                      

A party can move to transfer venue from a proper county to another county when the party can prove that such change of venue will promote convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice. (CCP § 397(c); Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607.) The moving party must file affidavits or declarations that show (1) the names of each witness expected to testify for both parties, (2) the substance of their expected testimony, (3) whether the witness has been deposed or has given a statement, (4) the reasons why it would be inconvenient for the witnesses to appear, and (5) the reasons why the ends of justice would be promoted by a transfer to a different county. (Juneau v. Juneau (1941) 45 Cal. App. 2d 14, 15-16.)

Discussion

Defendant moves for transfer of venue to Santa Clara County on the grounds that this Court is not the proper court to hear this action as no defendant resided in Los Angeles County at the time of commencement of this action and the accident occurred in Gilroy, Santa Clara County. (Fudge Decl.; Cote Decl., Ex. A.) Additionally, Defendant argues the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by such a change.

As such, because the alleged injury at issue occurred in Santa Clara County, and no Defendant resides in Los Angeles, Defendant’s motion to change venue to Santa Clara County is granted.