Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 22STCV17062, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17062    Hearing Date: July 21, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

ANN KULIDJIAN, ET AL., 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

 

ZACHARY MICHAEL WARD, ET AL., 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No.: 22STCV17062 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m. 

July 21, 2023 

 

  1. Background 

On May 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Anna Kulidjian, Stacy Lang, and Karine Kulidjian (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Zachary Michael Ward (“Defendant”) asserting motor vehicle and general negligence arising from an automobile incident which allegedly occurred on Wilson Ave., Glendale, California.  

At this time, Defendant moves to transfer venue to San Bernardino County.  Any opposition to the motion was due on or before July 10, 2023.  As of July 10, 2023, no opposition has been filed.  

 

  1. Transfer Venue 

Defendant asserts that to San Bernardino County is the county where Defendant- the sole defendant in this action- resides, and where the alleged injury occurred. Defense counsel avers that they have attempted to contact Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding the erroneous allegation that the collision occurred in Glendale, but did not receive a response.  Defendant contends that Los Angeles County is thus not the proper venue for trial in this matter, and the action must be transferred.  

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.)   

Here, Defendant provides evidence that the alleged incident that forms the basis of Plaintiff’s complaint occurred in San Bernardino County, and that Defendant resided in Big Bear City, which is in San Bernardino County.  (Mot. Ward Decl. ¶¶ 1-3.)  Additionally, the Court notes that Defendant was served at his residence in Big Bear, which is in San Bernardino County. Because this is a personal injury action, the injury occurred in San Bernardino County, and Defendant resides in San Bernardino County, venue is proper in San Bernardino County. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition demonstrating otherwise. 

 

Accordingly, the unopposed motion is granted.  

 

“If the transfer is sought solely, or is ordered, because the action or proceeding was commenced in a court other than that designated as proper . . . those costs and fees, including any expenses and attorney’s fees awarded to the defendant pursuant to Section 396b, shall be paid by the plaintiff before the transfer is made.”  (Code of Civ. Proc., § 399, subd. (a).)  Plaintiffs are ordered to pay all applicable fees before transfer is made to San Bernardino County.  Such fees shall be paid and the action shall be transferred within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. 

 

  1. Sanctions 

Defendant requests sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396(b), which provides that a court, in its discretion, may order the payment to the prevailing party of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in making or resisting the motion to transfer. Plaintiffs did not oppose this motion. Therefore, the Court declines to award any monetary sanctions.  

 

Defendant is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 20th day of July 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court