Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23NWCV00093, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV00093    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    Dept: 1

23NWCV00093         CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS vs ABC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Defendant’s Motion to Transfer District

TENTATIVE RULING:       The motion is DENIED.

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).)

Plaintiff Failed to Demonstrate a Transfer is Warranted

Plaintiff seeks to transfer this action to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District. The case is currently assigned to Department F of the Norwalk Courthouse, which sits in the Southeast District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. (LASC Local Rule 2.2(b).)

Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) contains mandatory filing rules which have no application to Plaintiff’s complaint, as the case does not fall within any of the enumerated case types: personal injury, asbestos, class action, probate, Labor Code section 98.2, writ of prohibition or mandate, emancipation, or adoption. If none of the mandatory provisions apply, an unlimited civil case may be filed in the Central District at a plaintiff’s election.  (LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B) (“Except as set forth in subsection (A) above, [Mandatory Filing], . . .  an unlimited civil or Family Code action may be filed in the Central District . . .”).) An unlimited civil complaint asserting employment related claims may be filed either in the Central District or “where the contract of employment was performed or where the employer resides or does business.” (LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B).) As alleged in the complaint, (Compl. ¶ 4), Defendant ABC School District resides and does business in the Southeast District. Thus, Plaintiff’s action is properly filed in either the Southeast District or the Central District.

Plaintiff contends “[d]ue to a clerical error by a clerk of the Los Angeles Superior Court, several cases filed by Plaintiff’s counsel’s law firm that should have been assigned to the Central District as a matter of right, were incorrectly routed to incorrect courthouses.” (Mot. at 1:3-5.)

Plaintiff’s motion and supporting declaration refer exclusively to Plaintiff’s counsel’s filing difficulties in a different case, 22SMCV02721 Chavez v. Santa Monica. Neither the motion nor the supporting declaration provide any evidence or indication that Plaintiff attempted to file the instant case in the Central District and was unable to complete such filing. Plaintiff attaches email correspondence with a court administrator, which similarly makes no reference to the instant case. (Xie Decl. Ex. 1.) Plaintiff’s reliance on its prior case filings, involving different cases and different districts, is misplaced. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is not supported by any applicable facts or law demonstrating a transfer of this action, 23NWCV00093 Roberts v. ABC Unified School District, is warranted.

In “Step 4” of the civil case cover sheet addendum filed by Plaintiff’s counsel 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’s counsel selected Reason 3 only, which correlates with the “[l]ocation where cause of action arose,” and listed the relevant address as 16700 Norwalk Blvd. Cerritos, CA 90703, which is Plaintiff’s former place of employment alleged in the complaint. (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 Southeast District was the appropriate filing location under the applicable Local Rules. Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint was filed in a proper district in compliance with the Local Rules.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated a transfer is warranted based upon 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).) The Court finds Plaintiff’s summary invocation of the Court’s inherent authority unpersuasive where, as here, there are enumerated Local Rules governing the specific relief sought.

Plaintiff failed to meet his burden and the motion is DENIED with prejudice.