Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2023-00009195-CL-BC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 05, 2023

10/06/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Limited  Breach of Contract/Warranty Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00009195-CL-BC-CTL PARAMOUNT PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENTS-SAN DIEGO LLC VS SH&J PRESENTATION INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT SH&J PRESENTATION, INC.'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE is DENIED.

Defendant SH&J Presentation, Inc. ('Defendant') moves to change venue to Los Angeles, asserting Plaintiff's Paramount Property Tax Adjustments-San Diego, LLC ('Plaintiff') choice of venue was improper. 'The plaintiff's choice of venue is presumptively correct.' (Easton v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 243, 247.) Defendant, as the moving party, has the burden to demonstrate that Plaintiff's venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds.' (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.) 'It is well established that a defendant is entitled to have an action tried in the county of his or her residence unless the action falls within some exception to the general venue rule.' (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 483.) A corporate defendant challenging venue may obtain an order changing venue only to the county of its principal place of business (Gutierrez v. Superior Court (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 710, 717 [52 Cal.Rptr. 592]), and in seeking such an order has the burden of negating the propriety of venue as laid on all possible grounds. (Smith v. Stanford Research Institute, supra, p. 754.) (Karson Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 7, 8–9.) Defendant has not met its burden. While Defendant provides evidence of its principal place of business is in Los Angeles, Defendant does not negate all possible grounds for venue in San Diego. CCP section 395.5 provides: A corporation or association may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 395.5.) CCP section 395.5 'must be read in light of the paramount purpose of section 395.5, which is to permit a wider choice of venue against corporations or associations than would be permitted in suits against individuals.' (Black Diamond Asphalt, Inc. v. Superior Court (2003) 109 Cal.App.4th 166, 171.) Defendant failed to address CCP section 395.5 in its moving papers. Plaintiff provides argument and evidence that it was to be paid in San Diego under the contract and that the services it provided to Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2965458  56 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PARAMOUNT PROPERTY TAX ADJUSTMENTS-SAN DIEGO LLC VS  37-2023-00009195-CL-BC-CTL Defendant were to be performed in San Diego, where Plaintiff is located. Further, the contract provides that failing to pay the fee would result in a legal action being filed in 'our local venue,' which would appear to be San Diego given Plaintiff's location. The motion is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2965458  56