Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 23GDCV01540, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23GDCV01540, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV01540 Hearing Date: January 4, 2024 Dept: 1

23GDCV01540 MICHAEL RICHARD BROWN, et al. vs MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC

Defendant’s Unopposed Motion to Transfer Venue

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC’s Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED and 23GDCV01540 is ordered reassigned to the Pomona Courthouse South in the East District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Notice of the case reassignment shall issue shortly. Moving party to give notice.

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).)

Considering that the same language appears in both LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) and Code of Civil Procedure § 397(c), the Court finds that a party acting under the authority of Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) should bear the burden of proof if it seeks a district transfer out of a presumptively correct forum, just as in motions for change of proper venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397(c). (See Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 396, 401.) That burden of proof should, moreover, call for affidavits that contain more than generalities and conclusions. (See Hamilton v Superior Court (1974) 37 Cal. App.3d 418, 424.) Such affidavits or declarations, like those for change of venue under Code Civ. Proc. section 397(c), should show the name of each witness, the expected testimony of each witness, and facts showing why the attendance of said witnesses at trial would be inconvenient or why the ends of justice would be served by a transfer. (See Stute v. Burinda (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 11, 17.) Convenience to non-party witnesses, not the convenience of parties or of the parties’ own employees, is generally the relevant consideration. (Ibid. See also J. C. Millett Co. v. Latchford-Marble Glass Co. (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 218, 227 (“While generally the convenience of the employees of either party will not be considered [Citations], when such employees are being called by an adverse party, the court may properly consider their convenience.”).) Additionally, “the convenience of a former employee may be considered.” (Edwards v. Pierson (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 72, 76.)

Discussion

Defendant seeks to transfer this action from the North Central District to the East District and argues the case has no connection to the North Central District or Glendale.

On the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location, Plaintiffs’ counsel certified that the Glendale Courthouse was the proper filing location based upon the address 330 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 and the stated reason that it is the “[l]ocation where cause of action arose.”

The complaint alleges “Plaintiffs purchased a 2022 Mercedes-Benz M2PV4G, having VIN No.: W1Z40FHY9NT098456” on May 26, 2022. (Compl. ¶ 9.) Defendant’s counsel provides the Retail Installment Sale Contract, which indicates Plaintiffs entered into the purchase agreement with Walters Auto Sales & Service, Inc. in Riverside, California. (Dobberstein Decl. ¶ Ex. 1.) The complaint alleges Plaintiffs had the vehicle serviced at Mercedes-Benz of West Covina on numerous occasions. (Compl. ¶ 46.)

The complaint does not demonstrate any basis for filing the action in the Glendale Courthouse. Pursuant to Los Angeles Superior Court 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.” Defendant notes “Mercedes-Benz of West Covina, located in West Covina, performed repairs on the Vehicle. These repairs form the basis for Plaintiffs’ claims under the Song-Beverly Act and for negligent repair. . . . Put simply, there is no connection between the basis of this action and Glendale.” (Mot. at 4:18-23. See also Compl. ¶ 46.) The parties’ stipulation received on September 15, 2023 states “the parties have met and conferred regarding the most appropriate and convenient venue for the instant action, and thereupon have agreed to transfer venue of this action from Glendale Courthouse to Pomona Courthouse.”

The allegations in the complaint and evidence before the Court demonstrate Plaintiffs entered into the purchase agreement in Riverside County and the relevant repairs were attempted at Mercedes-Benz of West Covina in Los Angeles County. Entering the city of West Covina into the court filing locator provides that all unlimited civil actions arising out of that location should be filed in the Pomona Courthouse South. Defendant has demonstrated the case was filed in an incorrect location and the Pomona Courthouse South is a proper filing location.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.