Judge: Marcella O. Mclaughlin, Case: 37-2023-00046754-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 23, 2024

05/24/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Marcella O McLaughlin

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00046754-CU-BC-CTL PHANTOM BIKES INC VS MATSUNICHI DIGITAL USA INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Change of Venue, 02/02/2024

Defendants' motion to transfer venue is GRANTED.

A. '[W]hen a plaintiff brings an action against several defendants, both individual and corporate, in a county in which none of the defendants reside, an individual defendant has the right to change venue to the county of his or her residence.' Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482, fn. 6. 'This is true even though the action was initially brought in a county where the corporate defendants may be sued under Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5.' Id. Here, it is undisputed that the none of the defendants reside in San Diego County. (Wang Decl., ¶ 3; Yu Decl., ¶ 3.) It is further undisputed that the individual defendant, Bin Wang, resides in Orange County.

(Wang Decl., ¶ 3.) Thus, Wang has the right to a change of venue to Orange County. See Brown, 37 Cal.3d at 482, fn. 6; see also Walker v. Wells Fargo Bank & Union Trust Co. (1937) 24 Cal.App.2d 220, 223.

Accordingly, the case is ordered transferred to Orange County Superior Court. The CMC set for today (ROA 19-20) and any other future dates are hereby vacated. Plaintiff must pay all costs associated with the transfer. Code Civ. Proc. § 399(a).

B. Defendants' request for monetary sanctions is granted in the reduced amount of $1,110 (3 hours at $350 per hour plus the $60 filing fee). Code Civ. Proc. § 396b(b). The evidence before the court shows that defense counsel informed plaintiff's counsel that none of the defendants were San Diego County residents, cited applicable case law regarding joining an individual defendant with corporate defendants, and requested that plaintiff's counsel stipulate to transfer the case. (Tanji Decl., ¶ 3; Ex. C.) However, plaintiff's counsel refused to stipulate. (Id.) C. Defendants' request for judicial notice (ROA 23) is denied as unnecessary to the court's ruling on the motion.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3084686  5