Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV01864, Date: 2024-08-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01864    Hearing Date: August 1, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: August 1, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Change Venue

Moving Party: Defendant Coast Roofing Inc.  

Responding Party: Unopposed  

T/R:     The Motion to Change Venue is GRANTED.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing. 

The Court considers the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from motor vehicle collisions on February 8, 2022. On January 24, 2024, Plaintiff Lorenzo Zeferino Ligario sued Defendants Coast Roofing Inc.; Coast Roofing; Jose Alejandro Garcia Castro; Elizabeth Brewer; and Felipe Martinez Alonso alleging causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence, Negligent Entrustment, Negligent Training, Negligent Hiring, Negligent Undertaking, Negligent Supervision, and Negligent Retention, and (2) Negligence Per Se.

Plaintiff alleges that the motor vehicle collisions occurred on a public highway in Los Angeles County. (Complaint, ¶¶ 8,11.)

Before the Court is Defendant Coast Roofing Inc.’s motion to change venue, seeking to move the case to San Luis Obispo County. The motion is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

Code Civ. Proc. § 397 provides that the court may, on motion, change the place of trial: (a) when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court; (b) when there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein; (c) when the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change; or (d) when from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act. (Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subds. (a)-(d).) Whether to grant or deny a motion to change venue “is discretionary with the trial court and is subject to reversal only on a clear showing of an abuse of discretion.” (Harden v. Skinner and Hammond (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 750, 754.) 

“[T]he superior court in 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 Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a).) “If the action is for injury to person or personal property or for death from wrongful act or negligence, the superior court in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of them reside at the commencement of the action, is a proper court for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a).)

            The Court GRANTS Defendant Coast’s request for judicial notice pursuant to Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.

            Counsel for Defendant Coast, Jason D. Ahdoot, declares that this matter arises from two separate collisions occurring in succession. While Plaintiff alleges that venue is proper in Los Angeles County because the accident was in Los Angeles County, a report by the California Highway Patrol shows that the collisions occurred in an unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County. In addition, Defendant Coast’s principal place of business is in San Luis Obispo County. Defendant argues that changing venue to San Luis Obispo County would serve the interest of judicial economy as well as the convenience of all involved parties. Counsel believes that the other defendants reside in Santa Barbara County.

            Defendant Coast has shown that venue is proper in San Luis Obispo County. Plaintiff has not opposed to challenge this showing, and therefore has conceded the arguments in the motion. (Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215.)

The Court GRANTS Defendant Coast’s motion. The case is transferred to San Luis Obispo County.