Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 22STCV37050, Date: 2023-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37050    Hearing Date: May 8, 2023    Dept: 39

Genevieve A. McSweeney v. Edward C. McSweeney, et al.

Case No. 22STCV37050

Demurrer

            Plaintiff Genevieve A. McSweeney (“Plaintiff”) filed this action both on her own behalf and derivatively on behalf of Ventura Pacific Holdings LP (“Ventura Pacific Holdings”) against her ex-husband, Edward McSweeney, and a series of individuals and entities (collectively, “Defendants”).  Now, Defendants demur to the complaint.

“It is black letter law that a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the allegations in a complaint.”  (Lewis v. Safeway, Inc. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 385, 388.)  In ruling on a demurrer, the court must “liberally construe[]” the allegations of the complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)  “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.”  (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

            Defendants argue that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction with respect to one defendant, the McSweeney Trust, under Probate Code sections 17000 and 17002(a).  Per section 17000, the Superior Court having jurisdiction over the trust has exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings concerning the internal affairs of the trust.  Section 17002(a) states that the principal place of the administration of the trust is the usual place where day-to-day activity of the trust is handled.  Per the complaint, this case does not appear to involve the internal affairs of a trust within the meaning of section 17000.  Regardless, the Court cannot determine based upon this record that the Los Angeles County Superior Court lacks jurisdiction over proceedings concerning the internal affairs of a trust. 

            Defendants argue that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them.  Defendants did not specially appear in this case.  By filing a demurrer, Defendants have made a general appearance in this matter.  In doing so, they have waited this argument.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1014.)

            Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s zip code required them to file this case in the Van Nuys Courthouse.  This is not a proper basis for a demurrer.  Instead, the remedy is for Defendants to file a motion to transfer a civil case from one judicial district to another judicial district, per Los Angeles County Superior Court, Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).  Such a motion must be noticed and heard in Department One. 

            The Court has considered Defendants’ remaining arguments and finds none to be persuasive.  Therefore, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendants’ demurrer is overruled.

            2.         Defendants shall file an answer within thirty (30) days.

            3.         Defendants’ counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.