Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22SMCV02858, Date: 2023-04-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02858    Hearing Date: April 20, 2023    Dept: 1

22SMCV02858          EBONG UDO-OKON, JR. vs JOSE ROBERTO GUEVARA, JR.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer Court District

TENTATIVE RULING:  The motion is DENIED.

Background

On December 23, 2022, Plaintiffs Ebong Udo-Okon, Jr., individually and as wrongful death beneficiary of and successor in interest to Raheem Udo-Okon, Donnisha Udo-Okon, individually and as wrongful death beneficiary of and successor in interest to Raheem Udo-Okon, Ima Udo-Okon, individually and as wrongful death beneficiary of and successor in interest to Raheem Udo-Okon, and Marcus Udo-Okon, individually and as wrongful death beneficiary of and successor in interest to Raheem Udo-Okon, filed this action against Jose Roberto Guevara, Jr., Christopher Cubas-Sanchez, and Allied Universal Security Services. The complaint arises out of a December 26, 2021 pedestrian versus automobile collision at the intersection of Sawtelle Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard.

On January 17, 2023 Plaintiffs filed a motion to transfer venue with the hearing set in Department R of the Santa Monica Courthouse. On February 14, 2023, Judge Mark H. Epstein issued an order denying the motion without prejudice, noting “[s]uch a motion must be brought in Division 1, not in the home court.”

Motion

On March 21, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to transfer with the hearing set in Department 1.

The motion is unopposed as Defendants have not appeared.

Motion to Transfer Between Courthouses

Standard

LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) authorizes Department 1 to transfer civil cases from one judicial district to another, including when the case was filed in an improper district, or for the convenience of witnesses or to promote the ends of justice. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).)

Plaintiffs Have Not Provided a Basis to Transfer the Action

Plaintiffs seek to transfer the action from the Santa Monica Courthouse in the West District to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District.

Plaintiffs cite Local Rule 3.3(h), California Rules of Court, rule 3.500 and Code of Civil Procedure section 403, (Mot. at 2:5-3:28), which do not apply here. These rules and Section 403 involve transfer, consolidation, and coordination of non-complex actions pending in different superior courts, not transfers of a single case between districts or courthouses within the same superior court. The Los Angeles Superior Court is only one court, even though it is divided into districts. (See generally Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1449 (“Even though a superior court is divided into branches or departments, pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 4, there is only one superior court in a county and jurisdiction is therefore vested in that court, not in any particular judge or department. Whether sitting separately or together, the judges hold but one and the same court.”).)

Requests to transfer a case between districts of the Los Angeles Superior Court are governed by the Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court and heard by Department 1. (Code Civ. Proc. § 402; LASC Local Rule 2.3(b).)

The case is currently assigned to Department R of the Santa Monica Courthouse, which sits in the West District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (LASC Local Rule 2.2(b).)

In “Item 1” of the civil case coversheet, Plaintiffs checked “Auto Tort: Auto (22)” as the case type that best describes the case. In completing Steps 1 through 3 of the coversheet addendum, Plaintiffs checked the box for “2201 Motor Vehicle – Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death.” (Stangeland Decl. Ex. B.)

In their motion, Plaintiffs contend “in the Addendum that the reason for choosing Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Central District, was due to the ‘location where performance required or defendant resides’ (Ex. ‘B’, pg. 4), and entered the address of Defendant JOSE ROBERTO GUEVARA, JR. of 1409 W 23rd Street, Los Angeles, California 90007, as the basis for filing in Stanley Mosk Courthouse (Ex. ‘B’, pg. 8). On December 27, 2022, Plaintiffs received the conformed copies back (Exhibit ‘C’) with case number 22SMCV02858 showing that the Summons had Stanley Mosk Courthouse crossed out and Santa Monica Courthouse typed in (Ex. ‘C’, pg. 1), and the Addendum’s basis for filing location was deleted and replaced with the incident location instead of Defendant JOSE ROBERTO GUEVARA, JR.’s address (Ex. ‘C’, pg. 8).” (Mot. at 4:8-20.)

Pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A), “[e]very unlimited civil tort action for bodily injury, wrongful death, or damage to personal property (hereinafter referred to as ‘Personal Injury Action’) must be filed in the judicial district where the incident arose.” This rule is mandatory and was in effect at the time of filing by operation of the September 20, 2022 Eighth Amended Standing Order for Procedures in the Personal Injury Hub Courts Effective October 10, 2022.

A personal injury action, includes “an unlimited civil case described on the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location (LACIV 109) as Motor Vehicle-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death,” (LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A)), which is the designation used by Plaintiffs on their civil case cover sheet addendum. Plaintiffs’ counsel indicates they called and the “Civil Clerk’s office stated that it was sent to the Santa Monica Courthouse because that is where the incident occurred.” (Stangeland Decl. ¶ 8.) Thus, Plaintiffs attempted to file their case in the Central District, which is the wrong district under the applicable Local Rules and general orders, and court staff correctly directed Plaintiffs’ case to the West District as required by Local Rule 2.3(a) and the Eighth Amended Standing Order.

Plaintiffs’ personal injury action was properly filed in the West District. Defendants have not appeared, making it premature to consider whether a transfer would support the convenience of witnesses or the ends of justice. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.