Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV10271, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10271    Hearing Date: March 2, 2023    Dept: 1

22STCV10271           WILL MAURER, et al. vs HARRY WATCHEL

Defendant Harry Wachtel’s Motion to Transfer Venue

TENTATIVE RULING:      The motion is GRANTED and 22STCV10271 is ordered reassigned to the Burbank Courthouse in the North Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  Notice of case reassignment shall issue shortly.  Clerk to give notice.

Background

On March 24, 2022, Plaintiffs Will Maurer and Marie Rousso filed a complaint against Harry Watchel asserting a single cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of habitability. The complaint alleges that Plaintiff “lived in an apartment building at 969 Larrabee St., West Hollywood, CA 90069,” (Compl. ¶ 6), and “began leasing a single-family residence located at 12509 Milbank Street in Studio City.” (Compl. ¶ 7.) Both residences are referred to as “the ‘Property’” without distinction. Plaintiff alleges the property suffered from a rat infestation, mold, and water damage.

Motion

On January 6, 2023, Defendant Harry Wachtel filed the motion to change venue seeking to transfer the action from the Central District to the North Central District.

The motion is unopposed and Defendant included a fully executed stipulation to transfer the action.

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).)

The Action Was Filed in the Wrong District and the Parties Stipulated to a Transfer

Defendant seeks to transfer this action to the action to the North Central District citing various inapplicable provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure related to which superior court, not district therein, is the proper venue. 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.”).) Defendant also cites Local Rule 2.3, which governs the assignment of cases between districts of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 402; LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).)

The case is assigned to Department 57 in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, which sits in the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (LASC Local Rule 2.2(b).) While the case is nearly a year old, the instant motion is Defendant’s first appearance.

In “Step 4” of the civil case coversheet where the filing party is asked to “[c]heck the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown under Column C for the type of action that you have selected. Enter the address, which is the basis for the filing location including zip code,” Plaintiff selected Reasons 2 and 5 and listed the relevant address as “969 Larrabee St., West Hollywood, CA 90069.” Reason 2 allows permissive filing in the Central District and Reason 5 is the “[l]ocation where performance required or defendant resides.”

In Step 5 of the civil case coversheet, where the filing party is asked to certify the proper filing location, plaintiff’s counsel indicated the Central District was the appropriate filing location under the applicable Local Rules.

As noted above, the complaint included two addresses for the property at issue and used the Larrabee address in Step 4. In the parties’ stipulation, they acknowledge the correct address for the property is 12509 Milbank Street, Studio City, California. (Newell Decl. Ex. B.) Pursuant to Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A), “[t]he filing court locator on the Los Angeles Superior Court website (www.lacourt.org) should be used to determine the appropriate filing location.” Using the Milbank Street address in the filing court locator yields a result for the Burbank Courthouse, in the North Central District, for all unlimited civil actions. (Newell Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) The parties also stipulated to transfer the case to the North Central District, which is an appropriate filing location based upon the properties’ location. (Id. Ex. B; LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B).)

Based upon the information provided and the stipulation of the parties, the motion is GRANTED.