Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23SMCV00021, Date: 2023-09-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV00021    Hearing Date: September 21, 2023    Dept: 1

23SMCV00021          SEAN CLARK, AN INDIVIDUAL vs COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Plaintiff’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 P of the Santa Monica Courthouse, which sits in the West 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).) Plaintiff alleges Defendant employed Plaintiff at 427 Encinal Canyon Road, Malibu, California 90265, (Compl. ¶ 3), which is within the West District. Thus, Plaintiff’s action is properly filed in either the West 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 almost exclusively to Plaintiff’s counsel’s filing difficulties in a different case, 22SMCV02721 Chavez v. Santa Monica. (Mot. at 1:27-2:20; Xie Decl. ¶¶ 3-16, Ex. 2-7.) Plaintiff’s reliance on his counsel’s prior filings involving different cases is misplaced. Neither the motion nor the supporting declaration provide any evidence that Plaintiff properly 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 lists this case as a matter that has “been assigned to different venues due to the repeated rejections and instructions we’d been given to write on the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum.” (Xie Decl. Ex. 1.) As noted by Defendant, (Opp. at 3:13-24), the email from the court administrator refers to the selection of Reason 2 on the civil case sheet addendum. (Xie Decl. Ex. 1 (“We have reiterated to them that, when item 2 and Central are selected as the location reasons on the Civil Case Cover Sheet, the filing shall be accepted for Central regardless of the address or zip code.”).) Plaintiff has not demonstrated he selected Reason 2 on a rejected filing in this case.

Plaintiff provides a rejected civil case cover sheet addendum for this action dated October 25, 2022. (Xie Decl. Ex. 8.) In “Step 4” of this 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’s counsel selected Reason 3 only, which correlates with the “[l]ocation where cause of action arose,” and listed the relevant address as 427 Encinal Canyon Road Malibu, CA 90265, (Xie Decl. Ex. 8.) This address is Plaintiff’s former place of employment alleged in the complaint. (Compl. ¶ 3.) As noted by Defendant in opposition, (Opp. at 3:13-24), Plaintiff did not select Reason 2, which correlates with permissive filing in the Central District. (Xie Decl. Ex. 8.) In “Step 5” of the civil case cover sheet, 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, which is entirely inconsistent with Plaintiff’s stated Reason and address. (Xie Decl. Ex. 8.)

The clerk’s Notice of Rejection alerted Plaintiff’s counsel to this inconsistency: “type of action with zip code 90265 is not filed at Stanley Mosk. Please refer to filing court locator on the court website to determine correct courthouse.” (Xie Decl. Ex. 9.) Rather than make clear Plaintiff sought to permissively file the case in the Central District, Plaintiff changed the certification in Step 5 only, to confirm the West District was the proper district. (Xie Decl. Ex. 10.) Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint was filed in West District, a proper district in compliance with the Local Rules.

Plaintiff’s motion is not supported by any applicable facts or law demonstrating a transfer of this action, 23SMCV00021 Clark v. County of Los Angeles, is warranted. There is no basis to transfer the action 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.