Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 24STCV15942, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV15942    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 4-21-25

Case: 23STCV15942

Trial Date: 1-12-26

TRANSFER/CHANGE VENUE

MOVING PARTY: Defendant, Combined Transport, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Angelica Lorenzo

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Change Venue/Transfer the Action to the Santa Cruz County Superior Court

SUMMARY OF ACTION

Plaintiff Angelica Lorenzo alleges a vehicle collision with Defendants on December 18, 2022.

On June 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a complaint for 1. Motor Vehicle Negligence, Negligent Entrustment, Negligent Hiring, Negligent Undertaking, Negligent Retention, Negligent Supervision And Negligent Training; and 2. Negligence Per Se. Defendant James Whitney answered the complaint on October 28, 2024. Defendant Combined Transport, Inc. answered on October 31, 2024. Defendants Combined Transport, Combined Transport Logistics Group, Inc. answered on January 22, 2025.

RULING: Granted.

Defendant Combined Transport, Inc. (Combined) moves to transfer the action to the Santa Cruz County Superior Court. Combined moves on grounds that the subject action arises from a car accident in Santa Cruz County, with no defendants residing in Los Angeles County. The court electronic filing system shows no opposition on file at the time of the tentative ruling publication cutoff. Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition.

“Except as otherwise provided by law and subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action. If the action is for injury to person or personal property or for death from wrongful act or negligence, the superior court in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of them reside at the commencement of the action, is a proper court for the trial of the action. ...” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a).)

“(a) The plaintiff shall state facts in the complaint, verified by the plaintiff's oath, or the oath of the plaintiff's attorney, or in an affidavit of the plaintiff or of the plaintiff's attorney filed with the complaint, showing that the action has been commenced in the proper superior court and the proper court location for the trial of the action or proceeding, and showing that the action is subject to the provisions of Sections 1812.10 and 2984.4 of the Civil Code or subdivision (b) of Section 395 of the Code of Civil Procedure ...

(b) If it appears from the complaint or affidavit, or otherwise, that the superior court or court location where the action or proceeding is commenced is not the proper court or court location for the trial, the court where the action or proceeding is commenced, or a judge thereof, shall, whenever that fact appears, transfer it to the proper court or court location, on its own motion, or on motion of the defendant, unless the defendant consents in writing, or in open court (consent in open court being entered in the minutes of the court), to the keeping of the action or proceeding in the court or court location where commenced. ...

(d) If it appears from the complaint or affidavit of the plaintiff that the superior court and court location where the action or proceeding is commenced are a proper court and court location for the trial thereof, all proper proceedings may be had, and the action or proceeding may be tried in that court at that location.

(e) A motion for a transfer of the action or proceeding to a different superior court may be made as in other cases, within the time, upon the grounds, and in the manner provided in this title, and if upon that motion it appears that the action or proceeding is not pending in the proper court, or should for other cause be transferred, the action or proceeding shall be ordered transferred as provided in this title.

Code Civ. Proc., § 396a

“Except as otherwise provided in Section 396a, if an action or proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof, other than the court designated as the proper court for the trial thereof, under this title, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the court where commenced, unless the defendant, at the time he or she answers, demurs, or moves to strike, or, at his or her option, without answering, demurring, or moving to strike and within the time otherwise allowed to respond to the complaint, files with the clerk, a notice of motion for an order transferring the action or proceeding to the proper court, together with proof of service, upon the adverse party, of a copy of those papers. Upon the hearing of the motion the court shall, if it appears that the action or proceeding was not commenced in the proper court, order the action or proceeding transferred to the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 396b, subd. (a).)

The operative complaint lacks identification of the site of the collision, but the declaration of counsel represents the accident occurred in Santa Cruz, Plaintiff was residing in in Santa Cruz at the time of the accident, Defendant Whitney is an Oregon resident, and Defendant Combined is an Oregon corporation. [Declaration of Patrick McIntyre.] The subject motion was filed on November 4, 2024—after the answers of Whitney an October 28, 2024, filed on October 28 and 31, 2024, respectively. Neither answer alleges a venue defect.

Notwithstanding the failure to preserve the venue objection in the answer and the filing of the motion after the answer, “[t]he court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: (a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 397.) Defendants only move under Code of Civil Procedure section 396b, without reference to Code of Civil Procedure section 397. While the court finds waiver under section 396b, the court declines to find any waiver under the unaddressed section 397. (Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 872, 879-880.) The court finds the unopposed motion supports a change of venue on the unchallenged basis of the accident occurring in Santa Cruz County, and no basis tethering the action to Los Angeles County other than Plaintiff’s counsel filing the complaint in the district.

The motion is GRANTED. The action is ordered transferred to Santa Cruz County Superior Court. All scheduled items beginning with the May 14, 2025, OSC re: Sanctions and continuing through the January 12, 2026, trial date are vacated.

Moving Defendants to give notice.