Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Neugebauer v. Annet, Date: 2022-09-09 Tentative Ruling

Defendant DPW I LLC’s motion to transfer venue is denied.

Defendant has not shown venue is improper here.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 396b(a); see also Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836 [burden]; Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 928 [same].)

Specifically, defendant has not shown this is an action “[f]or the recovery of real property, or of an estate or interest therein, or for the determination in any form, of that right or interest, [or] for injuries to real property.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 392, subd. (a)(1).)

Rather, this action seeks declarations about an LLC’s operating agreement and who holds what membership interests.  (See Compl. ¶ 81.)

The LLC’s business operations do not change the nature of the case.  Whether some members guaranteed constructions loans does not change the nature of the case.  Plaintiffs are not seeking to determine whether the LLC does or does not hold any real property interest.

Regardless of who its members are, at the end of the case the LLC’s real property interests will be unchanged.  This distinguishes defendant’s cited cases.  (E.g. Donohoe v. Rogers (1914) 168 Cal. 700; McFarland v. Martin (1904) 144 Cal. 771.)

While defendant briefly mentions potential witnesses, the motion was not noticed to seek transfer for sake of convenience and the evidence does not warrant it.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subd. (c); Lieppman v. Lieber (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 914, 919; Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607.)

Defendant shall give notice.