Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 23STCV21222, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV21222, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV21222 Hearing Date: December 17, 2024 Dept: 29

Holder v. AG Redlands, LLC
23STCV21222
Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue
Defendant’s Demurrer

Tentative

The hearing on the motion to change venue is continued to give moving party the opportunity to cure a procedural defect in the motion.

The hearing on the demurrer is also continued.

Background

On September 1, 2023, Elvia Holder by and through her successor-in-interest Daniel Holder, and Daniel Holder (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action against AG Redlands, LLC, dba Highland Care Center of Redlands (“Defendant”) and Does 1 through 200, asserting causes of action for (1) Elder Abuse, (2) Negligence, (3) Violation of Residents Rights, and (4) Wrongful Death, all arising out of care Elvia Holder received while a resident at Defendant’s facilities prior to her death on June 22, 2022.

On November 13, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to change venue. No opposition has been filed.

On November 14, 2024, a signed, joint stipulation to transfer venue was filed. It was rejected, however, as it did not state which party would pay the transfer fees.

On November 13, Defendant filed its demurrer. Plaintiff filed an opposition on December 4; Defendant filed a reply on December 6.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 395 provides in part as follows:

“[S]ubject 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).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 397 provides, among other things, that the court may “change the place of trial” when “the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subd. (c).)

Discussion

Defendant seeks to transfer this matter to San Bernardino County Superior Court. The events at issue all took place at a skilled nursing facility located on Highland Avenue in Redlands. (Complaint, ¶¶ 4, 17-26; Kim Decl., ¶ 3.) Indeed, Plaintiff and Defendant stipulated to this fact – although the stipulation to change venue was denied for procedural reasons.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is headquartered in the City of Los Angeles. (Complaint, ¶ 3.) Defendant, in its moving papers, does not contest this point. Thus, from the record, the Court concludes that Los Angeles County Superior Court is a proper venue under Code of Civil Procedure section 395, subdivision (a). Nonetheless, for the convenience of the witnesses and to promote the ends of justice, changing venue to San Bernardino County is likely appropriate under Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (c).

When a motion to change venue is sought under Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (c), “the costs and fees of the transfer, and of filing the papers in the court to which the transfer is ordered, shall be paid at the time the notice of motion is filed by the party making the motion for the transfer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 399, subd. (a).) Here, however, there is no evidence that Defendant, the moving party, posted those fees at the time the notice of motion was filed.

Accordingly, the Court continues the hearing on the motion to change venue to give Defendant the opportunity to cure this procedural defect and pay the fees required for the requested transfer.

As the hearing on the motion to change venue is being continued, the Court also continues the hearing on Defendant’s demurrer. If the motion to change venue is ultimately granted, the transferee court, and not this Court, will be the court with jurisdiction to rule on the demurrer.

Conclusion

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant’s motion to change venue for approximately 30 days.

The Court CONTINUES the hearing on Defendant’s demurrer for approximately 30 days.

Moving Party is ORDERED to give notice.