Judge: Michael Small, Case: 24STCV20464, Date: 2025-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV20464    Hearing Date: March 12, 2025    Dept: 57

The Court is denying the motion of Defendants Araceli Murillo Zarate and Altman Specialty Plants, LLC ("the Defendants") to transfer the venue for this action from Los Angeles County to San Benito County.   

Defendants argue in their motion that venue should be transferred under Code of Civil Procedure Section 396b because venue is improper in Los Angeles County and is proper in San Benito County.   Defendants are incorrect.  Based on the evidence before the Court, venue is proper in Los Angeles County under Section 395(a) because some of the other Defendants in the action reside in Los Angeles County.  That is all that is necessary to support venue in Los Angeles County under Section 395(a).  Venue would be proper in San Benito County, too, under Section 395(a) because the injuries giving rise to the action occurred there.  Where venue would be proper in more than one county, however, the Plaintiff is entitled to select in which of those counties the action will be brought.  (K.R.L. Partnership v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 490, 504.)

As an alternative argument, Defendants also say in their motion that venue should be transferred from Los Angeles County to San Benito County under Section 397(c) because the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the transfer.  Defendants have the burden of showing that the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the transfer. (Rycz v. Superior Court (2022 Cal. App.5th 824, 836.)  The Defendants have failed to carry that burden.  The contents of the declaration of Defendants' counsel are insufficient to support transfer of the action under Section 397(c).