Judge: Michael Small, Case: 24STCV32492, Date: 2025-05-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV32492    Hearing Date: May 22, 2025    Dept: 57

Defendant has moved to transfer the venue in this action from Los Angeles County to Riverside County.  The Court is granting the motion.

The basis for the  motion is Code of Civil Procedure Section 397(c).  That provision gives courts discretion to "change the place of trial… when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change."  Courts have that discretion even if venue is proper under Section 395(a) in the place where the action was brought.   (Rycz v. Superior Court) (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 824, 836.)  

 "Convenience of the witnesses" for Section 397(c) purposes is shown by the fact that the witnesses reside in the county to which the transfer of the case is requested. (Richfield Hotel Management, Inc. v. Superior Court  (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 222, 227.)
The "ends of justice" are promoted when it is shown that, by moving the trial closer to the witnesses' residences, court proceedings will be less delayed or less expensive, and witnesses will also save time and expense. (Id. at 227.)   The witnesses whose convenience matters under Section 397(c) generally are non-party witnesses only.  (Wrin v. Ohlandt (1931) 213 Cal. 158, 160.).

Defendant has shown in its motion that the convenience of the non-party witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by transferring venue to Riverside County.  The likely non-party witnesses in this action all reside there.  Plaintiff offers no evidence, and makes no argument, to the contrary in her opposition to motion.  Indeed, the opposition does not mention Section 397(c) at all.  Its focus is entirely on Section 395(a).  That concentration is misdirected because Defendant is not claiming that venue should be transferred under Section 395(a).