Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case 22TRCV00762 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22TRCV00762, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00762 Hearing Date: March 2, 2023 Dept: 1

22TRCV00762 ANN MARIE TABB vs BRUCE BEACH

Defendants Bruce Beach and Beverly MacDonald’s Motion to Transfer Action to the Probate Department in the Central Judicial District; Request for Payment by Plaintiffs’ Counsel of Defendants’ Expenses and Attorney Fees of $3,713.00.

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Action to the Probate Department in the Central Judicial District; Request for Payment by Plaintiffs’ Counsel of Defendants’ Expenses and Attorney Fees of $3,713.00 is GRANTED, in part. This action, 22STRCV00762, is ordered reassigned to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court for reassignment to a probate department. Notice of case reassignment shall issue shortly. Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and expenses is DENIED.

Clerk shall give notice.

Background

On August 31, 2022, Plaintiffs Ann Marie Tabb and Marie Ann Beach, as co-trustees of the Robert Beach Trust, filed a complaint against Bruce Beach, individually and as Executor of the Donald M. Beach Estate and as Successor Trustee of the Donald M. Beach Declaration of Trust Dated November 15, 2010, Beverly MacDonald, and Michael K. Lanning asserting causes of action for: (1) fraud, deceit and undue influence; (2) constructive fraud; (3) conspiracy to defraud; (4) elder financial abuse; (5) conversion; and (6) Probate Code § 17000 and 850 determination of entitlement to trust and estate distributions.

On November 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, removing the sixth cause of action and adding James Ellis, individually and d.b.a. JKR & Company, Inc. as a defendant.

On December 23, 2022, Defendants Bruce Beach and Beverly MacDonald filed their first motion to transfer with the hearing set in Department M of the Torrance Courthouse. On January 27, 2023, Judge David K. Reinert entered an order taking the motion off-calendar stating: “it needs to be heard by Department 1, Master Calendar.”

Motion

On February 1, 2023, Defendants refiled their motion to transfer with the hearing set in Department 1. Defendants seek to transfer the instant action from a civil department in the Southwest District to a probate department in the Central District.

Opposition

In opposition, Plaintiffs indicate they do not object to moving the case to the Western District of the Los Angeles Superior Court and argue the case does not belong in the Central District or in a probate department.

Plaintiffs’ memorandum fails to comply with the formatting requirements of the California Rules of Court as it does not include line numbers and appears to lack the required spacing between lines, (Cal. R. Ct., rule 2.108), and lacks the required footer, (Id., rule 2.110.) Plaintiffs’ counsel must ensure compliance with all application Rules of Court in future submissions.

Reply

In reply, Defendants argue Plaintiffs do not dispute that the case involves a trust contest, over which the probate department has exclusive jurisdiction, or that the probate department has concurrent jurisdiction over any other related claims, and its expenses and fees should be awarded.

Judicial Notice

Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of court records filed in the prior litigation involving the parties. The request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) The Court takes judicial notice of the existence of these documents and their legal effect, but not the truth of their contents.

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

Defendants seek to transfer this action to a probate department in the Central District citing Code of Civil Procedure sections 395(a) and 396b. However, Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a) governs which superior court, not district therein, is the proper filing location for an action and 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 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).)

This case is currently designated an unlimited civil case and is assigned to Department M of the Torrance Courthouse, which sits in the Southwest District of the Los Angeles Superior Court.

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 1, 2, and 3 and listed the relevant address as “7301 Vista Del Mar, Apt. 41, Playa Del Rey, CA 90293.” Reason 1 does not apply as the case is not a class action. Reason 2 allows permissive filing in the Central District and Reason 3 is the “[l]ocation where cause of action arose.”

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 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 Playa Del Rey address in the filing court locator yields a result for either the Torrance Courthouse or the Burbank Courthouse for an unlimited civil case.

Defendants provide evidence that the Playa Del Rey address used by Plaintiffs was Bruce Beach’s former residence, which he had not lived in since February of 2020. (Hinshaw Decl. ¶ 1.) “Since that time he has lived at various places in Los Angeles and Santa Monica in the Western District of the Los Angeles Superior Court.” (Ibid.) Defendant MacDonald resides in Connecticut. (Ibid.) There is no evidence before the Court demonstrating that the causes of action asserted in the complaint arose in Playa Del Rey. In opposition, Plaintiffs acknowledge the incorrect address and indicate their consent to a transfer to a civil department in the Western District.

Based upon the information before the Court, the case was filed in the incorrect district at the time of filing. The Playa Del Rey address does not appear to be relevant to the claims at issue. As stated in the civil case coversheet, Plaintiffs intended to file the case in the Central District. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ initial complaint contained an express cause of action under the Probate Code, which required mandatory filing in the Central District. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) (“All . . . Probate, and Trust proceedings must be filed in the Central District” subject to exceptions not applicable here).) Accordingly, the Local Rules required, and the civil coversheet requested, the case be filed in the Central District.

Defendants acknowledge Plaintiffs’ amended complaint removed the sixth cause of action, but argue the case remains a case under the Probate Code that should be assigned to a probate department. (Mot. at 1:16-20; 6:15-20.) Plaintiffs in opposition rely upon an inapplicable federal district court case that found it premature to address the federal court’s supplemental jurisdiction. (Opp. at 3-4; citing Mula v. Mula-Stouky (N.D. Cal., Aug. 15, 2022, No. 21-CV-04540-BLF) 2022 WL 3357673.)

The First Amended Complaint retains allegations that “Plaintiffs request the court determine that Defendants' fraudulently procured the purported trust dated November 15, 2010 and all subsequent Trust Amendments dated August 26, 2011, September 7, 2011 and May 4, 2012 (herein after collectively referred to as ‘Trust Instruments’) the trust instruments are invalid on the following grounds . . . decedent was not of sound mind and disposing mind under Probate Code Section 810-813 . . . The purported trust and all subsequent trust instruments if executed by Donald Beach were executed as a direct result of undue influence exerted by Defendants.” (FAC ¶ 53.) The original November 15, 2010 trust provided for a 12.5% share to the Robert Beach trust, (FAC Ex. I), but the amendments reduced the Robert Beach trust share to $1,000,000.00 less estate taxes. (Id. Ex. L.) The fraud cause of action alleges, in part, that the amendments were procured by fraud to reduce Plaintiffs’ inheritance, (FAC ¶ 56), and the conversion claim alleges “Defendants took property described above from Decedent and unduly influenced revisions to his estate plan to take and convert to Defendants' own use and benefit, the inheritance Decedent intended for Plaintiffs to receive.” (FAC ¶ 89.) The FAC further alleges Defendant Bruce Beach breached his fiduciary duties as the trustee. (FAC ¶ 64.)

The Court agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs’ claims are properly assigned to a probate department in the Central District. (See e.g. Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) 8 Cal.5th 822, 827 (“the Probate Code was intended to broaden the jurisdiction of the probate court so as to give that court jurisdiction over practically all controversies which might arise between the trustees and those claiming to be beneficiaries under the trust.”); Prob. Code §§ 17000; 17200(a); 17200(b)(3); 17200(b)(12); 16400; In re Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684, 698 (“plaintiff, a beneficiary of the QTIP Trust and of the Grandchildren's Trust, could properly file the first amended section 17200 petition at issue to compel redress of Ms. Bowles's alleged fiduciary duty breaches as to those trusts.”).)

In their motion, Defendants discuss “related proceedings in the Central District.” (Mot. at 3:5-6:13.) However, neither party has filed a Notice of Related Case in this action. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(b) (“Whenever a party in a civil action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding pending, dismissed, or disposed of by judgment in any state or federal court in California, the party must serve and file a Notice of Related Case.”).)

In opposition, Plaintiffs raise the convenience of witnesses, (Opp. at 1; Sullivan Decl. ¶ 5), but failed to provide any evidence supporting these claims as required. (See e.g. Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607.) Moreover, Plaintiffs are not the moving party. Accordingly, there is no basis to conclude a transfer is warranted based upon the convenience of witnesses.

Defendants are Not Entitled to Expenses and Legal Fees

Defendants request reasonable expenses and attorneys’ fees for bringing the instant motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396b(b), (Mot. at 6:22-7:18), which provides:

In its discretion, the court may order the payment to the prevailing party of reasonable expenses and attorney's fees incurred in making or resisting the motion to transfer whether or not that party is otherwise entitled to recover his or her costs of action. In determining whether that order for expenses and fees shall be made, the court shall take into consideration (1) whether an offer to stipulate to change of venue was reasonably made and rejected, and (2) whether the motion or selection of venue was made in good faith given the facts and law the party making the motion or selecting the venue knew or should have known. As between the party and his or her attorney, those expenses and fees shall be the personal liability of the attorney not chargeable to the party. Sanctions shall not be imposed pursuant to this subdivision except on notice contained in a party's papers, or on the court's own noticed motion, and after opportunity to be heard.

As noted above, Code of Civil Procedure section 396b applies to transfers between courts, not districts or departments within the same court. There is only one superior court in Los Angeles County. (See generally Glade, supra, 38 Cal.App.4th at 1449.) Defendants’ request for attorneys’ fees and expenses is DENIED.