Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 23STCV16723, Date: 2023-10-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16723    Hearing Date: October 25, 2023    Dept: 30

ANGEL MUNOZ vs J CASTAL, et al.

Motion for Forum Non Conveniens

TENTATIVE

Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action or, alternatively, stay all further proceedings based on forum non conveniens is denied. Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION

Defendants’ motion is not made on the grounds that the parties are not residents of California. To the contrary, Defendants seek to move the trial of this action from Los Angeles County to Kern County. Defendants, however, should have brought a motion to change venue instead of a motion for forum non conveniens. While the reply brief argues that venue is proper in Kern County, the moving papers provide no substantive argument on such point. More importantly, the notice of motion does not seek to change venue but rather seeks a dismissal or, alternatively, a stay of this action on the grounds that “California is an inconvenient forum for trial of this action.” (Motion at 2:4-6.) “A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(a).) “[D]ue process requires a party to be fully advised of the issues to be addressed and be given adequate notice of what facts it must rebut in order to prevail.” (Fenn v. Sherriff (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1481.) Under Betchel Corp. v. Industrial Indem. Co., supra, 86 Cal.App.3d 45, 49, the Court cannot grant Defendants’ motion as the parties are all California residents. If Defendants sought to change venue, then the notice of motion should have indicated as such. Plaintiff is entitled to proper notice to comport with due process.

Moreover, even if Defendants’ motion was a motion for change of venue and was properly noticed, the declaration of Ortiz lacks any facts showing why venue in Los Angeles County is improper. “In law and motion practice, factual evidence is provided to the court by way of declarations.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) The declaration of Ortiz contains no facts showing why venue would be more appropriate in Kern County as opposed to Los Angeles County. 

The Court therefore DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action or, alternatively, stay all further proceedings based on forum non conveniens.