Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV11417, Date: 2024-06-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV11417 Hearing Date: June 6, 2024 Dept: 1
22STCV11417 ANGEL BASULTO vs ANTELOPE VALLEY MEDICAL
CENTER, et al.
Defendant Antelope Valley Healthcare District’s Motion to
Transfer
TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Antelope Valley
Healthcare District’s Motion to Transfer District To The Superior Court of Los
Angeles County Michael D. Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse Pursuant to CCP
Sections 394 and 397 is DENIED. Counsel
for Plaintiff to give notice.
On April 4, 2022, Plaintiff Angel Basulto filed this
action against Defendants Antelope Valley Healthcare District, erroneously sued
as Antelope Valley Medical Center, Alberto Dominguez, Joe Lach, and Tony Doe
arising out of Plaintiff’s employment as a CAT Scan Technologist. The First
Amended Complaint, filed on July 6, 2022, asserts causes of action for: (1)
wrongful termination in violation of public policies; (2) medical leave
retaliation; (3) medical leave discrimination; (4) retaliation for exercising rights
for family leave; (5) family care leave discrimination; (6) kin care leave
retaliation; (7) kin care leave discrimination; (8) retaliation for requesting
accommodations for disabilities; (9) failure to engage in a timely, good faith,
interactive process to determine reasonable accommodation for disability; (10)
failure to reasonably accommodate disabilities; (11) disability discrimination;
(12) disability harassment; (13) sexual harassment; (14) sexual orientation
harassment; (15) harassment based on ancestry; (16) retaliation for opposing
violations of FEHA; (17) failure to prevent and stop harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation; and (18) whistleblower retaliation.
On
September 16, 2022, the court sustained Defendant Antelope Valley Healthcare
District’s demurrer to the first and thirteenth causes of action with leave to
amend. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint and Defendant Antelope
Valley Healthcare District filed its answer on October 6, 2022.
Motion
On May 2, 2024, Defendant Antelope
Valley Healthcare District (“AVHD”) filed the instant motion seeking to
transfer the action from the Stanley Mosk Courthouse to the Michael D. Antonovich Antelope Valley
Courthouse “on the grounds that AVHD is a local agency/public entity situated
in Lancaster, California, and the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of
justice would be promoted by the change.” (Not. at 2:7-9.)
Opposition
In opposition, Plaintiff contends Defendant did not
timely seek relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 394, failed to
meet its burden to demonstrate a transfer is warranted, and Plaintiff would be
prejudiced by the requested transfer.
In
opposition, Plaintiff impermissibly relies upon two trial court orders. (Opp. at
2:25-28, 3:19-21.) The Court disregards these citations. (City of Bakersfield v. West Park Home Owners Assn. & Friends (2016)
4 Cal.App.5th 1199, 1210 (“the City relies on similar financing plans having
been validated by at least eight California trial courts. The City requests
this court to take judicial notice of these trial court orders. However, trial
court orders hold no precedential value. Accordingly, we will neither rely
upon, nor take judicial notice of, these orders.”) (internal citation omitted);
Aguirre v. Amscan Holdings, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1290, 1299 n.5 (“Rule
8.1115 of the California Rules of Court prohibits the citation of unpublished
opinions of California state courts, with certain limited exceptions. (Cal.
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a).) We shall disregard the unpublished superior
court opinions cited and relied upon by plaintiff.”).)
Reply
In reply, AVHD contends Plaintiff’s case authority
is distinguishable, its motion based upon the convenience of witnesses is
timely, Plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the transfer, and the complaint
“enumerates all the witnesses and evidence that exist in Lancaster.”
Motion to Transfer Between Districts
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).)
Considering that the same language appears in both LASC
Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) and Code of Civil Procedure § 397(c), the Court finds that
a party acting under the authority of Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule
2.3(b)(2) should bear the burden of proof if it seeks a district transfer out
of a presumptively correct forum, just as in motions for change of proper venue
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397(c). (See Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 396, 401.) That
burden of proof should, moreover, call for affidavits that contain more than
generalities and conclusions. (See Hamilton v Superior Court (1974) 37 Cal.
App.3d 418, 424.) Such affidavits or declarations, like those for change of
venue under Code Civ. Proc. section 397(c), should show the name of each
witness, the expected testimony of each witness, and facts showing why the
attendance of said witnesses at trial would be inconvenient or why the ends of
justice would be served by a transfer. (See
Stute v. Burinda (1981) 123 Cal. App.
3d Supp. 11, 17.) Convenience to non-party witnesses, not the convenience of
parties or of the parties’ own employees, is generally the relevant
consideration. (Ibid. See also J. C. Millett Co. v. Latchford-Marble
Glass Co. (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 218, 227 (“While generally the
convenience of the employees of either party will not be considered
[Citations], when such employees are being called by an adverse party, the
court may properly consider their convenience.”).) Additionally, “the convenience of a former employee may be considered.” (Edwards v. Pierson (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d
72, 76.)
Discussion
Defendant
AVHD requests that the Court transfer this action from the Stanley Mosk
Courthouse in the Central District to the Michael D. Antonovich Antelope Valley
Courthouse in the North District of the Los Angeles Superior Court.
AVHD
contends it is a local agency within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure
section 394(a), which provides in relevant part: “any action or proceeding
against the city, county, city and county, or local agency for injury occurring
within the city, county, or city and county, or within the county in which the
local agency is situated, to person or property or person and property caused
by the negligence or alleged negligence of the city, county, or city and
county, local agency, or its agents or employees, shall be tried in that
county, or city and county, or if a city is a defendant, in the city or in the
county in which the city is situated, or if a local agency is a defendant, in
the county in which the local agency is situated.” (Mot. at 4:25-6:4.)
Defendant argues “because AVHD is a local agency/public entity, it is proper
for the district to be transferred to Lancaster.” (Id. at 6:3-4.)
The
Court finds Section 394 inapplicable as it governs transfers between counties,
or cities and counties, (See Cal. Const., art. XI, § 6(a)), not transfers
between districts within the superior court of a single county. As noted above,
the Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court govern the assignment of
cases. AVHD is not entitled to a transfer solely based upon its status as a
local agency or public entity.
Even
if Section 394(a) were to apply, AVHD unreasonably delayed in moving for relief
on this basis. (See e.g. Newman v. Sonoma County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 625,
628 (“In view of the extent to which the county, . . . participated in the
proceedings and delayed in making its motion, the trial court was entitled to
determine that the county did not act within a reasonable time.”).) AVHD filed
its first demurrer on June 3, 2022, its answer on October 6, 2022, and did not
identify the court location as an issue in its November 16, 2022 Case
Management Statement. AVHD did not file the instant motion until May 2, 2024. The Court finds Newman
persuasive. Notably, AVHD’s reply appears to acknowledge Section 394
does not apply by attempting to distinguish Newman as a case involving
transfers between counties, rather than transfers between districts. (Reply at
1:28-2:4.)
AVHD
also contends a transfer is warranted based upon the convenience of witnesses
and to promote the ends of justice. (Mot. at 6:5-7:2.) AVHD’s motion is only
supported by the summary, five-paragraph declaration of its counsel, which is
insufficient to meet its burden. AVHD’s reliance, in reply, upon the complaint
is also insufficient. (Reply at 4:7-4:21.) “The burden rests on one who seeks a
change of venue under this subdivision to prove that both the convenience of
witnesses and ends of justice will be promoted thereby, and this he must do
through affidavits that contain more than generalities and conclusions.” (Hamilton v. Superior Court (1974) 37
Cal.App.3d 418, 423.) The supporting declaration does not contain any of the
information required. (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607 (“The
affidavits in support of the motion for change of venue on this ground must set
forth the names of the witnesses, the nature of the testimony expected from
each, and the reasons why the attendance of each would be inconvenient.”).)
Accordingly, AVHD failed to meet its burden.
Finally, AVHD contends “Pursuant to
California Rules of Court, Rule 3.500(d)(4), the Court must also consider the
relative development of the actions and the work product of counsel in
determining whether to grant a request for transfer.” (Mot. at 7:4-6.) However,
Rule 3.500 applies to the coordination of non-complex cases between counties
and is inapplicable here. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.500(a) (“This rule applies when
a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 403 is filed requesting transfer
and consolidation of noncomplex cases involving a common issue of fact or law
filed in different courts.”).)
As the moving party, Defendant AVHD
failed to meet its burden and the motion is DENIED.