Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV11903, Date: 2024-10-15 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV11903 Hearing Date: October 15, 2024 Dept: 29
Cisneros v. Robertson
23STCV11903
Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On May 25, 2023, Plaintiff Jauna Ines
Labariega Cisneros (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendant Elaine
Robertson (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20 for negligence and negligence per
se. Plaintiff alleges that the parties
were involved in a motor vehicle accident on June 3, 2021, caused by
Defendant’s negligence.
On August 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed proof
of service of the summons and complaint on Defendant.
On September 16, 2024, Defendant filed this
Motion to Transfer Venue.
No opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
Code of Civil Procedure section 397 states: “The
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.”
“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).)¿¿
The burden is on the moving party to establish
facts justifying the transfer. (Mission
Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 928.) Absent
“an affirmative showing to the contrary the presumption is that the county in
which the title of the action shows that it is brought is, prima facie, the proper county for the commencement and trial of
the action.” (Ibid.; see also
Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009)
175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.)
Discussion
In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that all
parties reside in Los Angeles County and that the accident occurred there. (Complaint, ¶¶ 1-3, 8.) According to the evidence presented by
Defendant, however, Plaintiff’s counsel sent a demand letter stating that the
accident occurred in Encinitas (located in San Diego County), and Defendant
resides in San Diego County. (LaScola
Decl., ¶¶ 3-7 & Exh. B.)
Based on the evidence in the
record, the Court finds that the proper venue for this action is in the
Superior Court of the County of San Diego.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a).)
Los Angeles County is not a proper venue. Accordingly, the motion is granted.
As the motion is granted based on
an improper venue, Plaintiff is responsible for taking all actions to effect
the change of venue and for paying all applicable fees.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Defendant’s
motion to transfer venue to the Superior Court of the County of San Diego.
The Court ORDERS
Plaintiff to take all necessary actions to arrange for the change of venue and
to pay all applicable fees.
Moving party is
ordered to give notice.