Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV04610, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04610    Hearing Date: February 4, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

On September 29, 20234, Plaintiff RAFII & Associates, P.C. (“Plaintiff”) filed the initial  complaint against Defendants BFRM Legal Support Services (“BFRM”) and Brian Romero Mantilla (“Mantilla”) (together, “Defendants”), alleging three causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) professional negligence; and (3) breach of contract.  Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on November 26, 2024.

Defendants now move to change the venue of the action to the Central District (Stanley Mosk Courthouse.  Defendants’ 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

            Defendants move to change the venue to the Stanley Mosk courthouse on the grounds that this case was filed in the wrong court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 397, subdivision (a).  In support of the Motion, Defendants have provided the Declaration of Mark Waecker, which indicates:

4. Defendants BFRM Legal Support Services and Brian Romero Mantilla, its primary officer do business in downtown Los Angeles just several blocks from the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, located at 111 N. Hill St., Los Angeles, CA. This is where my client's do business and where witnesses will be called to testify in the above-entitled action, all of whom work in downtown Los 9 Angeles within blocks of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

5. The witnesses who will testify at Trial are Brian Mantilla, the owner of BFRM Legal Support Services. Mr. Mantilla will testify about the procedure to retain and use his firm; the processes his firm uses to provide services to clients like the Plaintiff and the duties and responsibilities of the Plaintiff to ensure all filing are correctly completed. In addition several employees of BFRM may testify to the relationship with the Plaintiff and the process as set forth above. All of the witness for the defense work in Downtown Los Angeles just a few blocks from the 17 Stanley Mosk Courthouse and it is much more convenient for them along with documents that may be used at Trial.  

(Waecker Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)

            However, this Court lacks authority to transfer cases to another district; the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division has the authority to transfer cases between districts. 

 (See Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 2.3(b)(2) [“The Supervising Judge of the Civil Division may, for the convenience of witnesses or to promote the ends of justice, transfer a civil case from one district to another”].)  As such, Defendants must have its motion heard in Department 1 in the Central District.  (Ibid.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court takes no action on Defendants’ motion to change venue.

To enable Defendants time to have its venue motion heard in Department 1, the Court, on its own motion, continues the Case Management Conference, and the Demurrer and Motion to Strike, from February 4, 2025 to May 13, 2025 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 207.

Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith. 

DATED:  February 4, 2025                                                    ___________________________

                                                                                          Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court