Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 22STCV25125, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV25125, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Dept. 1’s courtroom staff by email (SMCDept1@lacourt.org) or by telephone (213-633-0601) no later than 8:30 a.m. the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion. If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side 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 motion. Please keep in mind that appearing at the hearing and simply repeating the arguments set forth in the papers is not a good use of the court’s time or the parties’ time.

Case Number: 22STCV25125 Hearing Date: April 27, 2023 Dept: 1

22STCV25125 AMY JUNEAU vs STEPHEN BEAM

Plaintiff Amy Juneau’s Motion to Transfer

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

Background

On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff Amy Juneau filed the instant action against Defendant Stephen Beam asserting causes of action for: breach of express pooling agreement, breach of implied in fact pooling agreement, fraud, domestic violence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and quiet title as to 1411 Dickens Street, #118, Sherman Oaks, CA 91423.

On October 26, 2022, Judge David J. Cowan, then sitting in Department 1, issued an order relating 22STCV25125 with family law case 20STFL10537 In re: Marriage of Juneau and Beam, stating in part: “[t]he Court is relating the cases for resolution of Juneau’s claims relating to property acquired during marriage, but the domestic violence claim is not a basis for relating the cases. It may be appropriate to refer this claim back to civil court for determination following resolution of Juneau’s claims to property acquired during marriage.”

Motion

On March 28, 2023, Plaintiff Amy Juneau filed a motion seeking to transfer 22STCV25125 back to the civil division.

The Court did not receive a timely opposition and the motion is unopposed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.)

Discussion

Plaintiff purports to bring her motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396a(b), which provides:

If it appears from the complaint or affidavit, or otherwise, that the superior court or court location where the action or proceeding is commenced is not the proper court or court location for the trial, the court where the action or proceeding is commenced, or a judge thereof, shall, whenever that fact appears, transfer it to the proper court or court location, on its own motion, or on motion of the defendant, unless the defendant consents in writing, or in open court (consent in open court being entered in the minutes of the court), to the keeping of the action or proceeding in the court or court location where commenced. If that consent is given, the action or proceeding may continue in the court or court location where commenced. Notwithstanding Section 1801.1 and subdivision (f) of Section 2983.7 of the Civil Code, that consent may be given by a defendant who is represented by counsel at the time the consent is given, and if an action or proceeding is subject to subdivision (b) of Section 395 or is for an unlawful detainer, that consent may only be given by a defendant who is represented by counsel at the time the consent is given.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 396a(b).)

This portion of the statute expressly does not apply to Plaintiff’s request. (Code Civ. Proc. § 396a(f) (“If a motion is made for transfer of an action or proceeding to a different court location within the same superior court as provided in this section, proceedings shall be had as provided by local rules of the superior court.”).) Plaintiff’s motion is effectively a motion for reconsideration of Department 1’s order relating the two cases that does not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. Plaintiff’s motion also does not cite any provision of the Local Rules and therefore fails to provide any relevant authority.

Plaintiff contends “[t]ransfer of Juneau’s civil action from the Family Law Division back to the Civil Division will prevent Beam’s frivolous filings and reduce the substantial and unnecessary attorney's fees incurred by Juneau as a result.” (Mot. at 3:22-24.) However, the judicial officer presently assigned to the cases has the authority to address any “frivolous filings” in the same manner as any other judge. Plaintiff also contends the civil claim is ripe for adjudication as part of a default prove-up hearing. (Mot. at 5:19-6:11.) Similarly, the assigned judicial officer may determine the appropriate order of proceedings.

Plaintiff has not met her burden as the moving party and the Court finds no basis to transfer the previously related civil case back to a civil law department. The motion is DENIED in its entirety.