SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On August 19, 2020, Plaintiffs Vandrunen Fernandez, Sheila Fernandez (“Sheila”), Corazon Villones, Heinrich Fernandez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Roya Shookofy and Seyed Shayan Javaherian (“Defendants”) asserting negligence arising from an automobile incident which allegedly occurred on August 31, 2018 at El Toro Rd. in the County of Los Angeles. (Compl. at ¶ 8.)  

At this time, Defendants move to transfer venue to Orange County, arguing that the incident occurred in Orange County and that Defendants are residents of Orange County.  

Any opposition to the motion was due on or before November 22, 2023.  As of November 22, 2023, no opposition has been filed.  

 

II. Transfer Venue 

Pursuant to CCP §395(a), an action for personal injuries is properly brought in the “superior court in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of them reside at the commencement of the action, is a proper court for the trial of the action.”   

A motion for change of venue must be supported by competent evidence, such as the complaint and declarations of the parties.  (Mosby v. Superior Court (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 219, 227; see also Lieppman v. Lieber (1986) 180 Cal. App. 3d 914, 919 [declaration that relies on hearsay, generalities, and conclusions must be disregarded in determining the motion].)  When the motion seeks transfer to the moving defendant’s county of residence on wrong court grounds, the motion must establish the defendant was a resident of the county to which the transfer is sought at the time the action was commenced.  (Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc. v. Superior Court of Tuolumne County (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 65, 67-68.)   

Statutory provisions relating to venue in civil actions provide that, when a defendant believes that an action has been filed in an improper or unauthorized venue and wishes to object to trial of the proceeding in that venue, the defendant must object specifically and promptly or the objection will be forfeited. (People v. Simon (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 1082, 1102.) Here, Defendants filed their Answer on July 28, 2021, over two years ago. Nonetheless, a trial court has discretion to consider a motion to transfer venue based on the allegation that the court was not the proper court, even if venue was not challenged before filing the answer. (Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc. v. Superior Ct. (2018) 21 Cal. App. 5th 872, 876.) 

Defense counsel avers that they associated into the action on January 19, 2023. At that time, new defense counsel reviewed the file materials and noted that the subject intersection is located in the City of Laguna Hills, Orange County. Defendants provide evidence by way of Plaintiff Sheila’s discovery responses to form interrogatories, set one, in which she responded to interrogatory no. 20.1 as follows: “10-31-2018 at approximately 7:00 PM, at the intersection of El Toro Rd and Paseo de Valencia.” (Poull Decl. ¶3, Exh. C.) Although not expressly stated, defense counsel declares that this intersection is in the City of Laguna Hills, Orange County, and provides he searched this information through Google Maps. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. F.). Further, Defendants’ discovery responses provide they were residents of the County of Orange at the commencement of the lawsuit. (Id. at ¶¶ 4 and 5, Exhs. D and E.)  

The Court notes issues with the proffered evidence. In lieu of providing Defendants’ declarations that they resided in Orange County at the time of the commencement of the action, defense counsel instead provides their discovery responses. This would be sufficient if the discovery responses were verified. However, there is no evidence of any signed verifications to those responses. Further, defense counsel was not personally involved in the incident, and therefore does not have the requisite knowledge to attest that the incident occurred in Orange County. Defense counsel’s declaration that he searched the intersection location on Google Maps relies on unauthenticated information, which this Court may not consider. Because Defendants have not established with sufficient evidence that they were residents of Orange County at the time the action commenced, and have not provided competent evidence that the incident occurred in Orange County, the Court is unable to grant the motion.  

 

Accordingly, the motion is denied without prejudice on the grounds that Defendants have not provided competent evidence establishing venue is proper in Orange County.