Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 23SMCV04034, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04034    Hearing Date: April 4, 2024    Dept: I

This is a motion to change venue to Tulare County brought by the defense.  Plaintiff opposes.

The case involves a bus accident.  The bus left from Los Angeles but was involved in an accident in Tulare County.  Plaintiff contends that the bus driver was asleep at the wheel (or worse), and that this is what caused the accident.  Plaintiff asserts that there will be little or no dispute as to liability; the question will be damages.  While the court is not sure that defendant will not contend that another driver caused all or some of the accident, the court can imagine no way in which defendant will assert that it is in any way plaintiff’s fault—plaintiff was a passenger.

A series of cases involving the accident were filed in Tulare and coordinated.  However, it appears that all but one have been settled.  This is (so far as the parties have said) the only other case.

The law on venue is that the court has discretion to transfer the case pursuant to CCP section 397 for the convenience of witnesses or the ends of justice.  Generally, the parties’ convenience does not weigh in.

That said, plaintiff’s choice of venue (so long as venue is proper, as it is here) is—at least in the court’s view—entitled to some deference, especially if plaintiff resides here.  But plaintiff does not reside here.  She lives in Fresno.  On the other hand, the court also notes that plaintiff contends that to the extent Greyhound has a principal place of business within the state, it is here—and defendant does not deny it.  Plaintiff initially said that the bus driver lived here—and he will likely be a key witness.  But it turns out he likely lives in New York (that may have happened after the accident, and it is not clear to the court whether he is still a Greyhound employee).  Given that, neither Los Angeles nor Tulare are particularly convenient for him.  The court continued the matter to allow supplemental briefing, which has now been filed.

The court agrees that no one has really shown that liability will be a major issue in this case.  That said, to the extent that the circumstances of the accident are at issue—which could include the crash’s severity—the first responders will likely be important witnesses.  They all reside in or near Tulare, one would think.  On the other hand, some passengers might be witnesses and, at least according to plaintiff, at least some of them reside here or near here (although defendant disputes this, or at least the extent of it).

Plaintiff has identified a witness she claims is here who will testify that she thinks the driver was not only asleep but also under the influence.  Plaintiff also claims that the three key doctors are here.  While plaintiff concedes that she received initial treatment in Tulare, she contends that the treatment was fleeting—about 90 minutes only—before she was released, so plaintiff contends that those witnesses have little to say.  Overall, plaintiff alleges eight witnesses here including passengers and the driver’s current and former supervisors. 

Defendant counters that of the eight witnesses from the bus, only three are likely Southern Californians, and they are not going to be critical.  The defense emphasizes that the CHP officers and first responders will be critical in discussing the severity of the accident (including, one would assume, whether the driver was under the influence of anything).  Defendant notes that three of the passengers actually reside in South Carolina, and further questions whether plaintiff’s medical providers are in Los Angeles.  To the contrary, defendant contends that only one treating physician is in Southern California and the remainder are in Northern California.  Defendant further emphasizes that plaintiff has no tie to Los Angeles or Southern California, suggesting without quite saying that this is forum shopping.  Finally, defendant asserts that there is a risk of inconsistent judgments in Tulare and here.  While the court cannot see that as being the case on regular liability—there is still a possibility.  It could be that the two juries view Greyhound’s fault differently (such as whether there is a third party involved in the accident, whether the driver was under the influence, and whether Greyhound had reason to believe that the driver was a risk).  That is an area where the verdicts might differ.  In contrast, if the case remains here, the Tulare jury will not make any findings as to the extent of plaintiff’s injury, so damages pose no similar threat.  Overall, the ends of justice would suggest that one venue is better than two, but the court is not sure that this element tilts all that strongly in defendant’s favor given that most of the cases in Tulare have settled and the last one might settle soon.

On balance, the court will ask at oral argument for the parties to go through this again.  The court will look at plaintiff’s specific witnesses and ask specifically where they live—at least the County. If the key witnesses in fact live in Los Angeles, the motion will be denied.  If they live in Tulare, the motion will be granted.  If neither Los Angeles nor Tulare has a particular edge on witness convenience, the ends of justice suggest that Tulare is the better location because it eliminates the potential inconsistent judgments and there is a closer tie between this case and Tulare than Los Angeles.

The court recognizes that it has flip-flopped somewhat on this motion.  But that is in part because the additional briefing has disclosed additional facts of which the court was not initially aware.