Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 21STCV25467, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV25467, Date: 2023-09-07 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: 21STCV25467 Hearing Date: January 25, 2024 Dept: 1

21STCV25467 ALBERT GREGORY PINTO vs MAHA VISCONTI

Defendant Maha Visconti’s Motion to Transfer

TENTATIVE RULING: Maha Visconti’s Motion to Transfer is DENIED. Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.

On July 12, 2021, Albert Gregory Pinto filed this action against Maha Visconti arising out of a July 11, 2018 altercation between Pinto and Visconti, who were married at the time of the incident. The complaint alleges Visconti attacked Pinto, causing Pinto’s left eye to rupture, leaving him blind in that eye. The complaint further alleges “Defendant repeatedly contacted Plaintiff, in violation of an existing restraining order, and made statements to Plaintiff threatening harm to him and others close to him if he did not agree to rescind his allegations and make false statements to public officials in the criminal matter arising out of the July 2018 attack.” (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 25.) The complaint asserts causes of action for: (1) domestic violence tort, Civil Code § 1708.6; (2) assault and battery; (3) negligence; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (5) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

On May 26, 2022, Maha Modaddem (Maha Visconti) filed a cross-complaint against Pinto asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) fraud; (3) constructive fraud; (4) extortion – civil; (5) assault; (6) battery; (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) conversion; and (9) negligent misrepresentation. The cross-complaint alleges Pinto served as Visconti’s attorney prior to their relationship and their marriage “was obtained by pure error when they were living together for approximately six weeks . . .” (Cross-Compl. ¶ 7.) The cross-complaint alleges Pinto manufactured the domestic violence incident alleged in the complaint and his eye injury was a pre-existing injury. The cross-complaint further alleges Pinto converted Visconti’s Range Rover and other personal items while Visconti was incarcerated.

On July 29, 2022, Pinto filed a special motion to strike portions of the cross-complaint related to Pinto’s report to police. On December 6, 2022, Judge Elaine W. Mandel granted the motion, in part, striking Paragraphs 59 and 60, which reference Pinto’s police report in support of the fraud cause of action, paragraph 10 - line 25, paragraph 15 on page 3, and paragraph 16 - lines 19 to 22 from the cross-complaint.

On December 13, 2022, Visconti filed a document entitled “Notice Request that Judge Elaine Mandel Recuses Herself Due to Conflict in Another Case of Named Maha Visconti.” On December 14, 2022, Judge Mandel issued an order striking and denying the request for recusal.

On March 20, 2023, Visconti filed a Motion to Disqualify Judge Elaine Wendy Mandel Pursuant to C.C.P. § 170.1 and 170.3 and filed an amended version on March 21, 2023. On March 29, 2023, Judge Mandel filed an order striking statement of disqualification with a verified answer in response thereto.

On June 1, 2023, Judge Mandel issued an order granting Pinto’s February 3, 2023 motion to declare Visconti a vexatious litigant and entered a prefiling order against Visconti.

On June 23, 2023, Visconti filed a “1st Amended Motion to Urgently Disqualify Judge Elaine Wendy Mandel Pursuant to C.C.P. § 170.1 and 170.3, who Reportedly was not Assigned to this Case Randomly from 170.6 Peremptory Challenge in this Case and Must Immediately Recuse Herself from this Case.” On June 30, 2023, Judge Mandel filed an order striking statement of disqualification with a verified answer in response thereto.

On July 11, 2023, Visconti filed an amended version of the July 7, 2023 “2nd Amended Motion ‘Verified’ to Urgently Disqualify Judge Elaine Wendy Mandel Pursuant to C.C.P. § 170.1 and 170.3, who Reportedly was not Assigned to this Case Randomly from 170.6 Peremptory Challenge in this Case and Must Immediately Recuse Herself from this Case.” On July 13, 2023, Judge Mandel filed an order striking second statement of disqualification with a verified answer in response thereto.

On July 13, 2023 and July 18, 2023, Visconti filed an “amended-verified” version of the “2nd Amended Motion . . .” On July 20, 2023, Judge Mandel filed an order striking third statement of disqualification with a verified answer in response thereto.

On July 27, 2023, Visconti filed a Notice to Adverse Party of Removal to Federal Court. On October 18, 2023, the clerk filed an order of remand.

On January 4, 2024 and January 5, 2023, Visconti filed new Notices of Removal of Action citing “Case No. 1:24-CK-00013 in District Federal of Columbia.” On January 10, 2024, the court issued a minute order stating, in part, “Plaintiff’s counsel provides the Court with a search of federal cases in the Washington, D.C. circuit using the plaintiff's name, which does not list the plaintiff in any cases. Additionally, plaintiff's counsel provides the results of a PACER search showing no case in the D.C. circuit with the case number 1:24-CV-00013, as stated in the defendant's notice of removal. The Court is unable to confirm if the defendant properly filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court.”

On January 12, 2024, the court entered the First Amended Order Dismissing and Striking the Cross-Complaint by Maha Visconti.

Motion to Transfer Between Districts

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.

Discussion

While the caption of the July 13, 2023 motion references a separately filed declaration of George E. Murphy, no such declaration was filed, either on November 20, 2023 or July 13, 2023. Visconti’s motion is not supported by any evidence.

In the motion, Visconti makes numerous requests and allegations, many of which are immaterial to the types of relief Department 1 has the authority to provide. The motion appears to request that the case be transferred to the Ventura County Superior Court. (Mot. at 2:10-11, 6:20-22, 9:11-10:13.) The Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court generally dictate the types of motions heard in Department 1. Department 1 does not hear motions to transfer cases out of Los Angeles County. Accordingly, Visconti’s request to transfer the action to Ventura County is DENIED without prejudice.

Similarly, Department 1 is not the proper department to rule on Visconti’s jurisdictional arguments. Nothing in the Local Rules authorizes Department 1 to make jurisdictional determinations.

Visconti continues to assert Judge Mandel has a conflict of interest or should not preside over the case. (Mot. at 7:3-9:10.) However, the Code of Civil Procedure provides the proper procedural mechanisms to request disqualification of a judicial officer and seek review of any denial thereof. (Code Civ. Proc. § 170 et seq.) A motion to transfer is not a valid substitute for his procedure.

In the motion, Visconti also contends the Santa Monica Courthouse is not convenient for her and her counsel. Visconti is now self-represented, having filed a substitution of attorney on October 23, 2023. Moreover, “[c]onvenience of counsel is not a permissible basis for a change of venue motion.” (Lieppman v. Lieber (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 914, 920.) Accordingly, the convenience of her former counsel cannot support a motion to transfer. Similarly, Visconti’s convenience is also not considered for purposes of a motion to transfer. (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 612 (“convenience of the parties is not to be considered upon a motion for a change of venue”); Stute v. Burinda (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d Supp. 11, 17.)

Visconti also contends it is “not clear how this case was shifted around from its main Judge Honorable Whitaker at 312 Spring Street, Los Angeles all the way to Santa Monica since both parties involved in this litigation do NOT reside in Santa Monica,” (Mot. at 3:12-14), and requests the case be sent back to Judge Michael E. Whitaker. (Mot. at 9:20-23.) Judge Whitaker determined this case to be a complicated personal injury action on August 17, 2022 and the case was transferred pursuant to the court’s then-existing procedures related to complicated personal injury cases. Visconti cites no authority supporting the transfer back to Judge Whitaker.

Visconti, as the moving party, failed to demonstrate any factual or legal basis for Department 1 to transfer the action. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.