Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23CHCV03759, Date: 2024-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03759    Hearing Date: April 25, 2024    Dept: 1

23CHCV03759          PRODUCTION RESOURCE GROUP vs IMANI MEDIA GROUP INC

Defendants Imani Media Group, Inc. and Yolanda Halley’s Stipulated Motion for Order to Transfer Case

TENTATIVE RULING:  The Stipulated Motion for Order to Transfer Case to Appropriate Court is GRANTED and 23CHCV03759 is ordered reassigned to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  Notice of case reassignment shall issue shortly.  Clerk to give notice.

Request for Judicial Notice

Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of various court documents filed in this case. The request is GRANTED. (Evid. Code § 452(d).)

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).)

The Parties Stipulated to a Transfer to a Proper District

Defendants seek to transfer this action to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District. The case is currently assigned to Department F51 of the Chatsworth Courthouse, which sits in the North Valley District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (LASC Local Rules, rule 2.2(b).)

In section 1 of the civil case cover sheet, Plaintiff’s counsel checked the box describing the case type as “breach of contract/warranty (06).” 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.” A contract action may be filed in one of three locations, the Central District, where performance is required by an express provision, or where defendant resides. (LASC Local Rules, rule 2.3(a)(1)(B).)

In “Step 4” of the civil case cover sheet addendum 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 5 and listed the relevant address as “1245 Aviation Place, San Fernando, CA 91340. Reason 5 corresponds to the “[l]ocation where performance is required, or defendant resides” In Step 5 of the civil case cover sheet addendum, Plaintiff’s counsel certified that the case was properly assigned to the Chatsworth Courthouse.

As argued by Defendants, there are no allegations in the complaint regarding the San Fernando address. The account application attached to the complaint suggests Imani Media Group’s address is 9903 S. Santa Monica Blvd. #451 Beverly Hills CA 90212. (Compl. Ex. 1.) On December 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed proofs of service of summons indicating both Defendants were served via substitute service at 9903 Santa Monica Blvd, SUITE 451 Beverly Hills, CA 90212. (RJN Ex. 4.) Defendant Halley provided a declaration stating “IMG’s address is 9903 S. Santa Monica Blvd. #451, Beverly Hills, California 90212. I reside in the city of Beverly Hills. I have no knowledge or connection, personally or professionally, with the 1245 Aviation Place, San Fernando, California 91340 address.” (Halley Decl. ¶¶ 3-4.) The contract attached to the complaint does not appear to expressly require performance in any specific location. (Compl. Ex. 2.)

Based upon the Defendants’ Beverly Hills residence, the Santa Monica Courthouse, Beverly Hills Courthouse, or Stanley Mosk Courthouse, were the permissible filing locations for this action. (LASC Local Rules, rule 2.3(a)(1)(B).) Additionally, the parties “agreed that the Action should be transferred to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse.” (Guidry Decl. Ex. 1.)

The Court finds the case was filed in an improper district and the motion is GRANTED.