Judge: Richard Y. Lee, Case: 30-2023-01301014, Date: 2023-08-17 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Inland Empire Health Plan (“Defendant”) moves to transfer venue to San Bernardino County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 394(a) on the grounds that Defendant is domiciled in that county and transfer is required under the statute’s negligent injury provision.  Alternatively, Defendant requests transfer to Riverside County, also pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 394(a), as a neutral forum between the parties.

Defendant argues that it is a public entity HMO operating under a joint powers agreement between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and this action must be transferred, under Code of Civil Procedure section 394(a), to San Bernardino County because Plaintiff’s complaint expressly alleges that the negligence of Defendant caused Plaintiff legal injury and damages.  Alternatively, Defendant contends the action should be transferred to Riverside County under the provision that allows for transfer to a venue where neither the plaintiff nor defendant reside.

Plaintiff argues that neither provision of section 394(a) apply, venue is proper in Orange County under section 395, Defendant has failed to show that it is a “local agency” for purposes of section 394, and if this action is transferred to any other venue, it should be Los Angeles County.

“The court may, on timely motion, order transfer of an action “[w]hen the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.”  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 397(a), 396b(a).)  The moving party must overcome the presumption that the plaintiff has selected the proper venue.  (Mitchell v. Superior Court (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1046.)  Thus, “[i]t is the moving defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds.”  (Ibid.)

Section 394(a) provides, in pertinent part:

“any action or proceeding against the . . . local agency for injury occurring . . . within the county in which the local agency is situated, to person or property or person and property caused by the negligence . . . of the . . . local agency, . . . shall be tried . . . in the county in which the local agency is situated.”

As an initial matter, the Court will address whether Defendant is a local agency for purposes of the statute.  “Local agency” means “any governmental district, board, or agency, or any other local governmental body or corporation, but shall not include the State of California or any of its agencies, departments, commissions, or boards.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 394(b).)

In support of its argument that it is a local agency, Defendant cites to case law which describes Defendant as a public entity HMO and the local initiative Medi-Cal managed care plan formed under a joint powers agreement between Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.  (Allied Anesthesia Medical Group, Inc. v. Inland Empire Health Plan (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 794, 797; Inland Empire Health Plan (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 588, 590, disapproved on other grounds by Quigly v. Garden Valley Fire Protection Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 798, 815, fn. 8.) 

Plaintiff argues this is an inadequate showing because the case law only refers to Defendant as a public entity rather than a local agency.  However, the case law shows that Defendant, as a public entity, is a governmental body.  It further shows that Defendant is local in nature, as it is geographically limited to Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and Defendant was created by those Counties and not the State of California or its agencies, departments, commissions, or boards.  Thus, the Court finds that Defendant is a local agency within the meaning of section 394.

Accordingly, the next step in the analysis is whether the injury referred to in section 394 is alleged to be a tangible injury to person or property.  Tutor-Saliba-Perini Joint Venture v. Superior Court (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 736, 744 states that “mere economic loss” is insufficient. 

Here, Plaintiff has alleged a cause of action for negligence against all defendants.  Moreover, a review of the prayer for relief shows that Plaintiff is seeking more than “mere economic loss.”  In particular, Plaintiff seeks general damages, exemplary and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, interest, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and civil penalties.  (See Prayer, FAC). 

As a result, moving party has demonstrated that there exists an action against a local agency within the county where the local agency is situated to person and/or property alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the local agency.  Accordingly, the motion to transfer to the county where the local agency is situated must be granted. 

In light of all the above, the Motion for Transfer is GRANTED. 

The demurrer and motion to strike are MOOT for the independent reason that Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint and thus the challenge to the pleadings would have to be re-filed.

The Court takes the Case Management Conference off-calendar.

Moving Party to prepare a proposed order and to give notice.