Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case 22STCV19224 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV19224, Date: 2022-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 74 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept74@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative.

IF THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT RECEIVE AN EMAIL INDICATING THE PARTIES ARE SUBMITTING ON THE TENTATIVE RULING AND THERE ARE NO APPEARANCES AT THE HEARING, THE MOTION WILL BE PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

If you decide not to submit on the tentative ruling, REMOTE APPEARANCES ARE AUTHORIZED AND STRONGLY ENCOURAGED. Please visit the court’s Here for You | Safe for You News Center for the latest orders governing court business. http://www.lacourt.org/newsmedia/ui/HfySfy.aspx

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind: The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record. Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply repeat that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. 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 motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

Case Number: 22STCV19224 Hearing Date: October 6, 2022 Dept: 74

22STCV19224 JESUS FLORES vs WALL PANEL SYSTEMS, INC., et al.

Motion to Transfer

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Wall Panel Systems, Inc., dba Charbel Boukhalil; Charbel Boukhalil’s Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED. The action shall be transferred to San Bernardino County. Plaintiff shall pay the cost of transfer. (Code Civ. Proc. § 399(a).)

Background

On June 13, 2022, Plaintiff Jesus Flores filed this action against Defendants Wall Panel Systems, Inc. and Charbrel Boukhalil. The complaint asserts eleven causes of action based upon allegations of disability discrimination and retaliation during Plaintiff’s employment.

Motion

On August 16, 2022, Defendants filed the instant motion seeking to transfer this action to the San Bernardino Superior Court.

The motion is unopposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(c).)

On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Case Management Statement, which stated, in relevant part, “Plaintiff agrees with Defendant’s motion to venue transfer.” (Plaintiff Case Management Statement ¶ 15.)

Motion to Transfer Venue

Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 396b(a) provides: “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in Section 396a, if an action or proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof, other than the court designated as the proper court for the trial thereof, under this title, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the court where commenced, unless the defendant, at the time he or she answers, demurs, or moves to strike, or, at his or her option, without answering, demurring, or moving to strike and within the time otherwise allowed to respond to the complaint, files with the clerk, a notice of motion for an order transferring the action or proceeding to the proper court, together with proof of service, upon the adverse party, of a copy of those papers. Upon the hearing of the motion the court shall, if it appears that the action or proceeding was not commenced in the proper court, order the action or proceeding transferred to the proper court.” Thus, “[t]he court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: (a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 397.)

“There is a presumption that the county in which the plaintiff chose to file the action is the proper county.” (Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 309, 313–14.) “It is the moving defendant's burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff's venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds.” (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.) “Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made.” (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482.)

This Case is Properly Transferred to San Bernardino County

Defendants first cite Code of Civil Procedure sections 395(a) and 395.5 to argue venue is proper in San Bernardino County under those statutes. (Mot. at 3:6-4:1.) However, Plaintiff’s complaint asserts claims under FEHA and FEHA venue provision, not Section 395 or 395.5, governs. (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 487 (“the special provisions of the FEHA venue statute control in cases involving FEHA claims joined with non-FEHA claims arising from the same facts. Thus, the FEHA venue statute governs the entire action and section 395 does not apply.”).) Defendants alternatively argued venue is proper in San Bernardino County under the FEHA provision. (Mot. at 4:2-23.)

Pursuant to Government Code section 12965(c)(3), “[t]he superior courts of the State of California shall have jurisdiction of actions brought pursuant to this section, and the aggrieved person may file in these courts. An action may be brought in any county in the state in which the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, in the county in which the records relevant to the practice are maintained and administered, or in the county in which the aggrieved person would have worked or would have had access to the public accommodation but for the alleged unlawful practice, but if the defendant is not found within any of these counties, an action may be brought within the county of the defendant's residence or principal office.”

All conduct alleged in the complaint took place or arose out of Plaintiff’s place of employment. The complaint alleges “Defendants employed more than five individuals to work at their premises located at 1720 Howard Place, in Redlands, California, 92373.” (Compl. ¶ 19.) The city of Redlands in California is located within San Bernardino County. (Evid. Code § 452(h).) Defendant Boukhalil states Plaintiff’s duties and responsibilities primarily occurred in San Bernardino County. (Boukhalil Decl. ¶ 3.) Defendant moved its principal place of business from San Bernardino County to Riverside County in May of 2021. (Id. ¶ 5.) All relevant business records are maintained in Riverside County. (Id. ¶ 6.)

As noted above, Plaintiff indicated in his Case Management Statement he agrees with the transfer request. The Los Angeles Superior Court is not a proper court for this action. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to transfer this action to the San Bernardino Superior Court is GRANTED.