Judge Michelle Williams Court, Case Number: 23SMCV05698, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 23SMCV05698, Date: 2024-06-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV05698 Hearing Date: June 27, 2024 Dept: 1

23SMCV05698 RFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP vs ZAPS AUDIO INC., et al.

Defendants’ Unopposed Motion for Change of Venue

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants’ Motion to Change Venue is GRANTED and 23SMCV05698 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. 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).)

The Case Was Filed in an Improper District

Defendants seek to transfer this action from the Santa Monica Courthouse in the West District to the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District. (LASC Local Rules, rule 2.2(b).)

Defendants’ motion primarily cites portions of the Code of Civil Procedure which govern venue in the proper county for a given action, not the assignment of cases within the districts of a county. 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.”).)

In section 1 of the civil case cover sheet, Plaintiff’s counsel checked the box describing the case type as “[o]ther collections (09).” 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 “2216 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90405.” 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 West District.

The complaint alleges Defendant Zaps Audio, Inc. is “a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and doing business within the County of Los Angeles, State of California,” (Compl. ¶ 2), and Defendant Scalisi is “an individual residing in the Austin, Texas.” (Id. ¶ 3.) In support of the motion, Defendant Scalisi provides a declaration stating “[a]t all times Zaps Audio Inc. has done business in Austin, Texas. It . . . has never had a location or presence in Santa Monica California” and he “likewise has never had a location or presence in Santa Monica California.” (Scalisi Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) Thus, the evidence indicates neither Defendant resides in Santa Monica. Additionally, the only express term in the promissory notes requires litigation to be filed in the Central District. (Compl. Ex. 1 at ¶ 15 (“ . . . Borrower and any and all co-makers, endorsers, guarantors, and suretires irrevocably agree that any legal proceeding with respect to this Note shall be brough in the Central District of the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles . . .”); Compl. Ex. 3 at ¶ 15 (same); Compl. Ex. 2 at ¶ 15 (“With the exception of judicial and/or non-judicial foreclosure on the collateral at the election of Lender, Los Angeles County, California shall be proper place of venue for suit hereon, and the parties: (1) agree that all actions or proceedings relating directly or indirectly hereto shall be litigated in the Central District of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.”); Compl. Ex. 4 at ¶ 15 (same).)

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

While Defendants request Plaintiff “pay fees and costs associated with the transfer of venue,” (Mot. at 4:13-5:10), there are no fees or costs associated with a transfer between districts of the Los Angeles Superior Court.