Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV26669, Date: 2025-03-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV26669    Hearing Date: March 11, 2025    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 11, 2025

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Transfer Venue

Moving Party: Defendant J.G. Boswell Company

Responding Party: Plaintiff Marco Villaseñor

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE IS DENIED.

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, opposition, and reply.  

Defendant J.G. Boswell move to transfer venue to King County per CCP § 397(c). CCP § 397(c) provides, “The court may, on motion, change the place of trial…when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.” The burden is on the moving party to produce admissible evidence showing both convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be met. (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607.) 

“In a motion brought under section 397, subdivision 3, ‘the burden [of proof] rests on the party moving for transfer to establish grounds for change of venue, on the theory the plaintiff lays the venue and it is presumptively correct.’ [Citation.] ‘[I]t is not only necessary that convenience of witnesses be served, but it is equally essential that the ends of justice be promoted.’ [Citation.] 

While a motion made under this section is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, that discretion is not unfettered. For instance, except under limited circumstances, the court may not consider the convenience of the parties or of their employees in passing upon the motion. (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 612, 328 P.2d 953 [convenience of parties not to be considered]; International Investment Co. v. Chagnon (1959) 175 Cal.App.2d 439, 446, 346 P.2d 209 [convenience of a party’s employees not to be considered].)” 

(Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 396, 401.)  

Declarations made in support of the motion for change of venue, on the grounds that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted, must show (1) the name of each witness, (2) the expected testimony of each witness, and (3) facts showing why the attendance of said witnesses at trial will be inconvenient and why the ends of justice would be served by a transfer. (Stute v. Burinda (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d Supp. 11, 17.) 

This is a PAGA representative action. Defendant asserts that the action should be transferred to King County because Defendant has six locations in King County with 530 non-exempt employees and two locations in Kern County with 84 non-exempt employees working in these locations. Defendant represents that only 6 non-exempt employees work at the Los Angeles headquarters. Defendant concedes that venue in Los Angeles is proper because Defendant is headquartered there but argues that convenience of the parties would be better served by transferring the action to King County. Defendant does not provide a declaration with a list of witnesses and their expected testimony.

The Court declines to transfer the action. Venue is presumptively proper in Los Angeles as the headquarters of Defendant and as the venue chosen by Plaintiff. That an unknown number of witnesses may live in a different county is insufficient to overcome this presumption.

Defendant’s motion to transfer venue is DENIED.