Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV39013, Date: 2023-03-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV39013 Hearing Date: March 21, 2023 Dept: 55
KHALAYLI
v. ABDUL-WAHAB, 22STCV39013
Hearing Date: 3/21/23,
Dept. 55.
#8: MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE.
Notice: Okay
Opposition
MP:
Defendants
RP:
Plaintiff
Summary
On 12/15/22, Plaintiff SARA KHALAYLI filed a Complaint
alleging that defendants falsified documents at the Los Angeles Belgian Consulate, to obtain Belgian passports and ID
Cards for Plaintiff’s children, without her knowledge or consent.
The causes of action are:
1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
PENAL CODE §528.5(e)
2. FRAUD (CONCEALMENT)
CACI 1901
3. VIOLATION OF RICO, 18
U.S.C. §1962(c)
4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
5. NEGLIGENCE
6. WILLFUL MISCONDUCT.
MP
Positions
Moving party requests an order transferring venue to the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, on grounds
including the following:
·
Had she filed her action as a
cross-complaint in the Orange County case, the entire action would be stayed
pending her appeal on the Anti-SLAPP ruling. By improperly filing in a
different county, she wants to be able to proceed on her side of the case while
his side is stayed due to her appeal after losing her Anti-SLAPP Motion in the instant
Defendant’s defamation case as Plaintiff therein.
·
All parties are domiciled in Orange
County. The principal place of business
of Desert Farms, Inc. is in Orange County. 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. Code of Civ. Proc. § 395(a); Brown v. Sup.Ct. (C.C.Myers,
Inc.) 37 Cal.3d 477, 483 (1984).
·
In the alternative, this case should be
transferred and consolidated pursuant to California Rules of the Court Rule
3.500, as it involves a common question of fact under Code of Civil Procedure
Section 403.
RP
Positions
Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons
including the following:
·
Venue is proper because Los Angeles County
is where the injury occurred, where obligation or liability arose, and/or where
the breach occurred.
·
Defendant’s request to transfer venue
pursuant to Rule Of Court 3.500 is fatally flawed because the Defendants did
not submit declaration stating facts showing that the actions meet the
standards specified in Code of Civil Procedure §404.1. Code of Civil Procedure
§403.
·
There is no common issue of law or fact
which predominates over this case and the other case pending in Orange County,
as the other case did not involve an allegation that Defendants falsified
documents at the Belgian Consulate.
Tentative
Ruling
The motion is denied.
Coordination
The Coordination rule only allows the Judge to
transfer another Judge’s cases to the Judge deciding the motion. So, this Court cannot transfer this case to
Orange County as coordination and consolidation. “Any judge in any court may order a ‘noncomplex’
case pending in another court transferred and consolidated with a case pending
in that judge's court.” Cal. Prac.
Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2022) § 12:405.1.
Here, ongoing disputes related to divorce proceedings
already have been extensively raised in Orange County Court, such that the
other Court logically is better equipped to efficiently handle those cases,
instead of this Court.
Specifically, Defendant’s declaration shows that
Plaintiff and Defendant are divorced and are sharing custody of their
children. Defendants’ request for
judicial notice, filed 2/14/23, shows that defendants herein have been
litigating as plaintiffs as to their Defamation Complaint, in Orange County
Superior Court, asserting that Plaintiff herein, has been involved in a
defamatory campaign against defendants herein, including common family-law type
topics, and business reputation, which also tangentially relate to ongoing
divorce proceedings, child custody disputes and alleged domestic violence.
The other case is still pending on appeal, as to a
losing SLAPP motion, by order dated 9/21/22.
Trial court proceedings on the merits are automatically stayed following
an appeal from the denial of an anti-SLAPP motion, except those related to
causes of action not affected by the motion.
Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal. 4th 180,
191, 195 n.8; Sanai v. Saltz
(2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 746, 757.
The involved civil cases, in a sense, serve as
extensions of contentious Family Law Court proceedings in Orange County. The instant Complaint, starting at paragraph
15, includes extensive allegations against defendants’ business, as did the
SLAPP motion in the Orange County case.
Additionally, the instant Complaint includes allegations of domestic
violence, as did the SLAPP motion in the other case (e.g., ¶ 47). Further, the instant Complaint has
allegations related to divorce proceedings in Orange County, such as paragraph
48. Related to that, the instant
Complaint alleges that defendants fraudulently obtained passports as leverage
over the Plaintiff in the parties’ ongoing custody battle, via a threat that the
parties’ children could be taken out of the country (e.g., ¶ 63). Such issues and related civil cases are common
in relation to Family Law Court cases.
All things considered, the Court finds that transfer
and consolidation of the other case, into this case, will not promote the ends
of justice, considering the coordination criteria.
According to a treatise, applicable actors include:
Coordination is proper if
it will “promote the ends of justice,” taking into account the following
criteria:
• Whether the “common
question” of fact or law is predominating and significant to the litigation;
• The convenience of
parties, witnesses and counsel;
• The relative
development of the actions and the work product of counsel;
• The efficient
utilization of judicial facilities and manpower;
• The calendar of the
respective courts;
• The disadvantages of
duplicative and inconsistent rulings, orders or judgments; and
• The likelihood of
settlement of the actions without further litigation should coordination be
denied. [CCP § 404.1;….
Civ. Pro. Before Trial, supra, at §§ 12:375, 12:405.
Venue
The motion has failed to negate the alleged
occurrences in Los Angeles, which support venue here.
Moving parties must negate all possible bases for
proper venue. Buran Equip. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 1662,
1666. “Generally, when venue is proper
in more than one county, a plaintiff has the choice of where to file the action
from among the available options.” Battaglia
Enterprises., Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 309, 313. As to actions joining corporations as
defendants, venue is proper in the county of an individual defendant's
residence, the corporation's principal place of business, or where the contract
was made, or to be performed, or the obligation or liability arose. CCP §395.5.
Motions, and stipulations, to
change venue operate as a stay of proceedings, pending a ruling or transfer of
the case. South Sutter, LLC v. LJ
Sutter Partners, L.P. (2011) 193
Cal.App.4th 634, 655.
Compulsory
Cross-Complaint
This action is not barred as a compulsory
cross-complaint, because trial has not occurred in the other case, which
theoretically leaves time to file a cross-complaint.
“Since section 426.30 bars claims which the party
failed to assert by cross-complaint in a previous action arising from the same
occurrence, it necessarily bars issues which were never litigated and never
actually decided. Thus, the scope and effect of section 426.30 is analogous to
that of res judicata….” Hulsey v.
Koehler (1990) 218 Cal. App. 3d 1150, 1157. If a compulsory cross-complaint “has not
been pleaded by the time the case goes to trial, judgment in the underlying
action will bar later recovery by the party on the related claim.” City of Hanford v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 208
Cal. App. 3d 580, 587.