SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

On August 15, 2023, Plaintiffs Sion Paul Singleton, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem Angel Jacoba Schat, and Angel Jacoba Schat (“Plaintiffs”) filed their operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) action against Defendants Porter Charles Jones, Brian Charles Jones, County of Inyo, State of California, and City of Bishop, asserting a claim for negligence arising from an automobile accident which occurred on August 29, 2021 at the intersection of Horace Albright Avenue in the City of Bishop, California.  

At this time, Defendants Porter Charles Jones and Brian Charles Jones (“Jones Defendants”) move to transfer venue to Inyo County. Any opposition to the motion was due on or before August 30, 2023. As of August 30, 2023, no opposition has been filed.  

The Jones Defendants assert that Inyo County is the county where the Jones Defendants reside, that no individual defendant in this action resides in Los Angeles County, and that the automobile accident giving rise to the action occurred in the County of Inyo. The Jones Defendants thus contend that Los Angeles County is 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, the Jones Defendants provide evidence that the alleged incident that forms the basis of Plaintiffs’ FAC occurred in Inyo County, that the Jones Defendants were and are residents of the City of Bishop, which is in Inyo County. (Mot. Schlecht Decl. ¶ 4, Exh. A.)  

 

As to public entity State of California, Government Code § 955.2 states:   

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, where the State is named as a defendant in any action or proceeding for death or injury to person or personal property and the injury or the injury causing death occurred within this State, the proper court for the trial of the action is a court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the injury occurred or where the injury causing death occurred. The court may, on motion, change the place of the trial in the same manner and under the same circumstances as the place of trial may be changed where an action is between private parties.¿ 

The introductory clause of section 955.2 (‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law,') would appear on its face to express a legislative intent that section 955.2 control venue in all tort cases in which the State is a defendant even though by reason of the joinder of other defendants venue would also be proper in a county other than that in which the injury occurred. This conclusion is supported by the wording of the second clause of section 955.2 which says, ‘where the State is named as A defendant in any action’ (emphasis added). The use of the indefinite article ‘a’ rather than the definite article ‘the’ suggests the legislative intent that section 955.2 is to control in cases where the state is one of several defendants as well as in cases where it is the only defendant.¿ 

(State v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 637, 639.)¿¿¿ 

In this case, the complaint on its face alleges that the subject accident occurred in Inyo County. Furthermore, Defendant City of Bishop is part of Inyo County.  

The Jones Defendants, therefore, establishes that venue is improper in Los Angeles, that the action was filed in the “wrong court,” and that the action must be transferred. Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion.  

 

The unopposed motion is therefore GRANTED. Because transfer is ordered on the ground that Plaintiffs filed in the “wrong court,” Plaintiffs are responsible for paying the costs and fees of transferring the action to Inyo County within thirty (30) days after service of notice of the transfer order. If Plaintiffs fail to do so after service of notice of the order, any other interested party, whether named in the complaint or not, may pay such costs and fees in order to expedite the transfer. If the fees and costs are not paid within thirty days, the action is subject to dismissal. (CCP § 399(a); see Stasz v. Eisenberg (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1037.)   

 

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice.   

 

 

Dated this 9th day of November 2023