Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV00213, Date: 2024-04-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00213    Hearing Date: April 30, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint against Defendant Altan Onon (“Defendant”), for common counts, stemming from Defendant’s alleged failure to repay a credit balance of $60,596.86.  The Complaint alleges Defendant resides in Marina Del Rey, but Plaintiff has since discovered that Defendant lives within Marin County, and now moves to transfer venue to Marin County.  Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. 

LEGAL STANDARD

            “Except as otherwise provided by law and subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, the 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).)

            “Subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, in an action arising from an offer or provision of goods, services, loans or extensions of credit intended primarily for personal, family or household use, other than an obligation described in Section 1812.10 or Section 2984.4 of the Civil Code […] the superior court in the county where the buyer or lessee in fact signed the contract, where the buyer or lessee resided at the time the contract was entered into, or where the buyer or lessee resides at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (b).)

            “If it appears from the complaint or affidavit, or otherwise, that the superior court or court location where the action or proceeding is commenced is not the proper court or court location for the trial, the court where the action or proceeding is commenced, or a judge thereof, shall, whenever that fact appears, transfer it to the proper court or court location, on its own motion, or on motion of the defendant, unless the defendant consents in writing, or in open court (consent in open court being entered in the minutes of the court), to the keeping of the action or proceeding in the court or court location where commenced. If that consent is given, the action or proceeding may continue in the court or court location where commenced.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 396a, subd. (b).)

            The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases:

(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 witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.

(d) When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act.

[…]

(Code Civ. Proc., § 397.)

ANALYSIS

            The Complaint alleges that Defendant entered into the contract at issue in Los Angeles County and also currently lives in Los Angeles County.  (Complaint ¶ 7.)  In support of the motion to transfer venue, Plaintiff has provided the Declaration of Gloria Zarco, indicating that since filing the Complaint, Plaintiff has discovered that Defendant currently resides in Mill Valley, California.  (Zarco Decl. ¶ 3.)  The Court notes that Mill Valley is in Marin County.

            Plaintiff now moves to transfer venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (a) on the basis that the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles is not the proper court.

            The Complaint alleges both that the contract was entered into in Los Angeles County and that Defendant resided in Los Angeles County at the time the action was commenced.  Although Plaintiff has since learned that Defendant in fact currently resides in Marin County, Plaintiff has not challenged the allegations that Defendant signed the contract in California.  Therefore, it does not appear from the face of the Complaint or the Zarco Declaration that venue is improper in the county of Los Angeles or that this Court is not a proper court or venue.

            However, because Defendant currently resides within Marin County, and Plaintiff submitted the motion to transfer, the Court finds that the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change of venue.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the reasons stated, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to transfer venue to the Superior Court of California, County of Marin, and orders Plaintiff to forthwith effectuate the transfer and pay all related costs and fees associated with the transfer of the action. 

Further, the Court on its own motion vacates the Case Management Conference and discharges the Order to Show Cause set on August 30, 2024. 

The Clerk of the Court shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling. 

DATED:  April 30, 2024                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court