Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 23GDCV01895, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23GDCV01895, Date: 2024-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23GDCV01895 Hearing Date: August 29, 2024 Dept: 1

23GDCV01895 MARIA ACOSTA vs FORD MOTOR COMPANY

Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Change of Venue

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue is GRANTED and 23GDCV01895 is ordered reassigned to the Norwalk Courthouse in the Southeast District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. Notice of case reassignment shall issue shortly. Clerk to give notice.

Background

On September 7, 2023, Plaintiff Maria Acosta filed this lemon law against Defendants Ford Motor Company and Cerritos Ford, Inc. dba Norm Reeves Ford Superstore. The complaint alleges Plaintiff purchased a 2020 Ford Expedition that suffered from defects with the transmission and Defendants were unable to repair the vehicle.

On May 9, 2024, Judge Ralph C. Hofer issued a minute order setting an Order to Show Cause Re: Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed Failing To File Transfer Case To Correct Venue Through Dept 1 (Cerritos - Norwalk Court).

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests the Court take judicial notice of the complaint in this action and the Statement of Information filed by both Defendants with the California Secretary of State. The requests are GRANTED. (Evid. Code §§ 452(c); 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).) A transfer under the Local Rules is discretionary.

The Action Was Filed in the Wrong District

Plaintiff seeks to transfer this action from the Glendale Courthouse in the North Central District to the Norwalk Courthouse in the Southeast District. Plaintiff contends the case was filed in the wrong district.

Plaintiff relies upon Code of Civil Procedure sections 395 and 395.5, which govern venue in the proper county, not the assignment of cases within a superior court. The Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court govern the assignment of cases between districts and courthouses. (Code Civ. Proc. § 402; LASC Local Rule 2.3; 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.”).) However, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395(b):

[I]n an action arising from an offer or provision of goods, services, loans or extensions of credit intended primarily for personal, family or household use . . . In the superior court designated in this subdivision as the proper court, the proper court location for trial of a case is the location where the court tries that type of case that is nearest or most accessible to where the buyer or lessee resides, where the buyer or lessee in fact signed the contract, where the buyer or lessee resided at the time the contract was entered into, or where the buyer or lessee resides at the commencement of the action. Otherwise, any location of the superior court designated as the proper court in this subdivision is a proper court location for the trial. The court may specify by local rule the nearest or most accessible court location where the court tries that type of case.

(Code Civ. Proc. § 395(b).) Additionally, pursuant to Local 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.”

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 3, which corresponds to “Location where cause of action arose” and listed the relevant address as “330 N Brand Blvd. Glendale, CA 91203.” However, the complaint does not allege any conduct occurred in Glendale. Rather, the complaint alleges Defendant Cerritos Ford has its principal place of business in the City of Cerritos, (Compl. ¶ 4; see also Sogoyan Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B), and failed to perform the repairs at its facility. (Compl. ¶¶ 65-68.)

As noted above, the pleadings and evidence indicate the negligence cause of action arose out of a contract for services rendered in Cerritos, California. Unlimited civil cases arising out of Cerritos, California are properly filed in the Norwalk Courthouse in the Southeast District. Accordingly, the case was filed in the wrong district and the motion is GRANTED.