Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 22STCV39173, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV39173, Date: 2023-08-24 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: 22STCV39173 Hearing Date: August 24, 2023 Dept: 1

22STCV39173 JOHN DANIEL RICHARD NAVA vs NATURES PRODUCE

Defendant’s Motion to Transfer

TENTATIVE RULING: Nature Produce’s Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED and 22STCV39173 is ordered reassigned to the Norwalk Courthouse in the Southeast District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Moving party to give notice. The Court shall issue the notice of case reassignment shortly.

Background

On December 16, 2022, Plaintiff John Daniel Richard Nava filed this action against Defendants Nature’s Produce and Flying Food Group, Inc. for negligence and premises liability. The complaint alleges Plaintiff suffered a slip and fall injury in a property located at 3305 Bandini Blvd. Vernon, CA 90058.

Motion

On January 30, 2023, Defendant Nature’s Produce filed the instant motion seeking to transfer this action from the Spring Street Courthouse in the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court to the Norwalk Courthouse in the Southeast District.

Opposition

On July 6, 2023, Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion arguing the case was properly filed in Los Angeles County and the motion is untimely.

Reply

In reply, Defendant notes a motion to transfer must be made by a noticed motion under the applicable local rules and the motion was timely filed.

Motion to Transfer Between Judicial Districts

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 on a noticed motion. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).)

The Action Was Filed in the Wrong District and Transfer is Warranted

Defendant seeks to transfer this action to the Norwalk Courthouse in the Southeast District. The Local Rules of the Los Angeles County Superior Court govern the assignment of cases between its districts. (Code Civ. Proc. § 402; LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).)

The case is currently assigned to Department 27 in the Spring Street Courthouse, which sits in the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (LASC Local Rule 2.2(b).)

In “Step 4” of the civil case cover sheet 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 Reason 4, which correlates with the “[l]ocation where bodily injury, death or damage occurred,” and listed the relevant address as “3305 Bandini Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90058.” However, the complaint alleges “[t]he negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants as herein alleged took place in or about the city of Vernon, in the County of Los Angeles . . . ,” (Compl. ¶ 1), and identifies the location of Plaintiff’s injuries as 3305 Bandini Blvd. Vernon, CA 90058. (Compl. ¶ 4.)

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.

Pursuant to LASC Local Rules, 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. Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) also provides “[t]he filing court locator on the Los Angeles Superior Court website (www.lacourt.org) should be used to determine the appropriate filing location.” Entering the city of Vernon and the zip code 90058 into the filing court locator yields a result for the Norwalk Courthouse, in the Southeast District for all unlimited civil personal injury actions. Entering the city as Los Angeles, rather than Vernon, yields a result for the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

As noted above, the complaint alleges Vernon, not Los Angeles, is the correct city. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 4.) Accordingly, there has been “a failure to file the case in accordance with the requirements set forth in” Chapter 2 of the Local Rules. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).)

In opposition, Plaintiff contends “Defendant seems to have mixed up the two concepts of ‘venue’ and ‘district’ making the instant Motion procedurally incorrect.” (Opp. at 3:7-8.) Plaintiff’s argument lacks merit. “The nature of a motion is determined by the nature of the relief sought, not by the label attached to it. The law is not a mere game of words.” (City and County of San Francisco v. Muller (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 600, 603.) Defendant’s motion clearly seeks a transfer between judicial districts within the Los Angeles Superior Court. (Mot. at 4:1-2 (“The Court should order the transfer of this case to the Norwalk Courthouse.”).) Therefore, Defendant’s motion is procedurally proper under LASC Local Rules, rule 2.3(b)(2).

Plaintiff also contends the motion is untimely, citing inapplicable authority related to motions to transfer between counties. (Opp. at 4:17-5:7, citing Code Civ. Proc. § 396b(a) (requiring a motion to change venue to be filed “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”).) Section 396b governs transfers between superior courts, not districts therein. The Los Angeles Superior Court is only one court, even though it is divided into districts and departments. (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.”).) The Local Rules do not contain a similar filing deadline.

Plaintiff argues “Plaintiff filed its proof of substituted service on Defendant on December 19, 2022. Defendant is now only filing this Motion seven months later requesting a change in venue.” (Opp. at 5:4-6.) Plaintiff’s timeline is inaccurate as Defendant filed the motion on January 30, 2023, forty-five days after the action was filed and five days after Defendant filed its answer. The Court finds the motion was filed within a reasonable time.

Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The instant case was improperly filed in the Central District and a transfer to the Norwalk Courthouse in the Southeast District is warranted.