Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 19STCV02020, Date: 2024-03-28 Tentative Ruling

If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email
the clerk at SMCdept1@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same
email) no later than 7:30 am on the day of the hearing, and please notify all
other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing.  Include the word "SUBMISSION" in
all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the
case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you
submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing
party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the
Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 19STCV02020    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: 1

19STCV02020           JANE ROE vs JAMES A MACER, M.D., et al.

Plaintiff’s Application of Plaintiff for an Order to Transfer Civil Case to Judicial District (C.C.P 402; LASC Local Rule 2.3 (b) (2))

TENTATIVE RULING:  Plaintiff’s Application of Plaintiff for an Order to Transfer Civil Case to Judicial District (C.C.P 402; LASC Local Rule 2.3 (b) (2)) is DENIED. The case shall remain as assigned.  Clerk to give notice.

Standard

The Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court govern the assignment of cases between its districts and departments. (Code Civ. Proc. § 402.) LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) authorizes Department 1 to transfer civil cases from one judicial district to another via a noticed motion on three enumerated grounds: (1) when the case was filed in an improper district; (2) for the convenience of witnesses; or (3) to promote the ends of justice. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).) A transfer under the Local Rules is discretionary.

Plaintiff Has Not Demonstrated a Sufficient Basis for a Transfer

Plaintiff seeks to transfer this action from the Alhambra Courthouse in the Northeast District to back to the Burbank Courthouse in the Northwest District or to any other district.

Plaintiff contends a transfer would promote the ends of justice because the case involves intimate details of Plaintiff’s life and a different judicial district “would be less likely to contain a jury pool of plaintiff’s coworkers, co-employees, and patients.” (Mot. at 4:21-23.) Plaintiff states news of the transfer to Alhambra caused her emotional distress because she is “worried that jurors at the Alhambra and Pasadena courthouses would be more likely to reside in the areas neighboring Huntington Hospital including Pasadena, San Marino and Alhambra, where a lot of my coworkers, co-employees, physicians, nurses, co-workers, staff and patients reside.” (Corwin Decl. ¶ 8; Roe Decl. ¶ 5.)

Plaintiff does not provide any authority supporting the contention that her speculation regarding the potential jurors is sufficient to warrant a transfer. Plaintiff cites Civil Code section 3427.3, which has no application here. Civil Code section 3427.3 provides “[t]he court having jurisdiction over a civil proceeding under this title shall take all steps reasonably necessary to safeguard the individual privacy and prevent harassment of a health care patient, licensed health practitioner, or employee, client, or customer of a health care facility who is a party or witness in the proceeding, including granting protective orders” and allows the use of pseudonyms. The title under which Civil Code section 3427.3 is located, is entitled “Interference with Access to Health Care” and refers to cases involving a “commercial blockade” of a health care facility. (Civ. Code §§ 3427 et seq. See Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 105, 110 (“Because of the inherently sensitive nature of some proceedings, statutes specifically allow for keeping certain parties’ identities confidential. (See, for example, . . . Civ. Code, § 3427.3 [allowing pseudonym in actions for interference with access to health care].”).) Plaintiff’s claims are not brought under this statute.

Plaintiff also cites Code of Civil Procedure section 367.3. However, this statute only applies where the litigant “is an active participant in the address confidentiality program created pursuant to Chapter 3.1 (commencing with Section 6205) of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code.” Plaintiff has not demonstrated she is an active participant in California’s Safe at Home Program, which is designed to assist “persons attempting to escape from actual or threatened domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or elder or dependent adult abuse.” (Gov. Code § 6205(a).)

As argued by Defendant, the trial judge has numerous tools at their disposal to address Plaintiff’s concerns regarding potential jurors. Plaintiff has not met her burden to demonstrate a transfer would promote the ends of justice within the meaning of Los Angeles Superior Court, Local Rule 2.3(b)(2). The application is DENIED.