Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22SMCV00330, Date: 2023-06-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00330    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 26

SM 10000 Property LLC v. Naylor, et al.

MOTION TO TRANSFER ACTION

(CCP § 116.223)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Heather Naylor’s Renewed Motion to Transfer Action to Small Claims is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On March 8, 2022, Plaintiff SM 10000 Property LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for breach of lease agreement against Defendant Heather Naylor (“Defendant”). The case was originally assigned to an unlimited jurisdiction courtroom. Plaintiff filed a proof of substitute service of the Summons and Complaint on April 18, 2022. Defendant’s first motion to quash service of the Summons and Complaint (“the First Motion to Quash”) was granted by the unlimited jurisdiction court on July 7, 2022. (Minute Order, 07/07/22.) Specifically, the court ruled that service of the Smmons and Complaint at a post office box was appropriate but that Plaintiff did not demonstrate due diligence at personal service. (Ibid.)

Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on October 6, 2022, and on Novmeber 16, 2022, the case was transferred to the limited jurisdiction court. (Minute Order, 11/16/22.) Plaintiff filed a proof of substitute service of the Summons and First Amended Complaint on November 18, 2022.

Defendant, specially appearing, filed a second Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint (“the Second Motion to Quash”) on December 13, 2022. Concurrent with the proceeding in this action, Defendant filed a Small Claims action against Plaintiff, under LASC Case No. 22SMSC00457, on March 16, 2022. The Small Claims action was resolved in favor of Defendant on December 5, 2022. (LASC Case No. 22SMSC00457, Minute Order, 12/05/22.) Plaintiff appealed the Small Claims judgment and following a trial de novo on March 15, 2023, the small claims judgment in favor of Defendant was set aside. (LASC Case No. 22SMSC00457, Minute Order, 03/15/23.)

The Court granted Defendant’s second Motion to Quash on February 24, 2023, after taking the matter under submission. (Minute Order, 02/24/23.) Plaintiff filed proof of service by substitute service on March 8, 2023. On June 22, 2023, the Court denied Defendant’s third Motion to Quash Service of the Summons and Complaint and Motion to Transfer Action to Small Claims. (Minute Order, 06/22/23.)

Defendant filed the instant Motion to Transfer on October 13, 2023. Plaintiff filed an opposition on October 27, 2023.

Discussion

In the instant Motion, Defendant asks the Court to transfer this action to small claims pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 116.223. The Court previously denied Defendant’s request to transfer the action to small claims on June 22, 2023. (Minute Order, 06/22/23, pp. 3-4.) Specifically, the Court ruled:

Code of Civil Procedure section 116.223, however, does not provide for the transfer of cases from the limited jurisdiction court to small claims. Rather, it provides that “It is the intent of the Legislature that landlords of residential real property and their tenants have the option to litigate” COVID-19 rental debt disputes in small claims court regardless of the amount in controversy and regardless of the jurisdictional limit of the small claims court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.223, subds. (a)(4), (b)(1).) This does not require that the limited jurisdiction court transfer this action to small claims, or even that transfer of such a case is appropriate once it has been filed. Rather, it merely provides that such cases can be filed in the small claims court. Nor does Defendant address this argument on reply.

Therefore, the request to transfer the action to small claims court is denied.

(Ibid.) When a party seeks the same relief that was previously denied, it must bring a renewed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (b). (California Correctional Peace Officers Ass’n v. Virga (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 30, 43, fn. 11; see also Tate v. Wilburn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 150, 156-157.) When a motion has been denied in whole or in part, the moving party may apply again for the same relief at a later time only upon “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (b); see Graham v. Hansen (1982) 128 Cal.App.3d 965, 969-970.)

Despite being a renewed motion, Defendant has not filed a supporting declaration as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008.

Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant Heather Naylor’s Renewed Motion to Transfer Action to Small Claims is DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.