Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22SMCV02721, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02721    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    Dept: 1

22SMCV02721          JAMES CHAVEZ vs CITY OF SANTA MONICA

Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer District

TENTATIVE RULING:       The motion is GRANTED.

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 is Warranted Under the Circumstances Here

Plaintiff seeks to transfer this action to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District. The case is currently assigned to Department M of the Santa Monica Courthouse, which sits in the West District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (LASC Local Rule 2.2(b).)

Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) contains mandatory filing rules which do not apply to Plaintiff’s complaint, as the case does not fall within any of the enumerated case types: personal injury, asbestos, class action, probate, Labor Code section 98.2, writ of prohibition or mandate, emancipation, or adoption. If none of the mandatory provisions apply, an unlimited civil case may be filed in the Central District at a plaintiff’s election.  (LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B) (“Except as set forth in subsection (A) above, [Mandatory Filing], . . .  an unlimited civil or Family Code action may be filed in the Central District . . .”).) An unlimited civil complaint asserting employment related claims may be filed either in the Central District or “where the contract of employment was performed or where the employer resides or does business.” (LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B).) Defendant City of Santa Monica resides and does business in the West District. Thus, Plaintiff’s action is properly filed in either the West District or the Central District.

Plaintiff contends “[d]ue to a clerical error by a clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court, several cases filed by Plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm that should have been assigned to the Central District as a matter of right, were incorrectly routed to incorrect courthouses.” (Mot. at 1:3-5.) Plaintiff attempted to file this action several times, but the clerk’s office rejected every attempt to permissively file the case in the Central District. (Xie Decl. Ex. 2-14, Ex. 1-7.) The last notice of rejection expressly stated “[o]n the addendum, according to the fcl, this should be filed in Santa Monica Courthouse or Beverly Hills Courthouse.” (Xie Decl. Ex. 7.)

As argued by Plaintiff and acknowledged by a court operations administrator, (Xie Decl. Ex. 1), the clerk’s office mistakenly rejected Plaintiff’s attempted permissive filings in the Central District and mistakenly mandated Plaintiff file this action in the West District. Plaintiff complied with the clerk’s office’s instructions to ensure the complaint was filed. Defendant contends “it was not wrong for the Court to assign this case to Santa Monica . . . [and] the Santa Monica Courthouse is an appropriate place for the trial of this matter.” (Opp. at 2:7-14.) While filing mistakes are typically made by the filing party, in this instance it is clear the filing mistakes were made by the clerk’s office. The Local Rules expressly allow Plaintiff to permissively file this action in the Central District and Plaintiff was prevented from such filing. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B).)

Accordingly, there has been “a failure to file the case in accordance with the requirements set forth in” Chapter 2 of the Local Rules, which is a proper basis for a transfer between districts. (LASC Local Rules 2.3(b)(2).) Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer District is GRANTED and 22SMCV02721 is ordered reassigned to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Notice of Reassignment shall be issued shortly.

Plaintiff to give notice.