Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case Number: 20STCV31568, Date: 2024-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs Ashley Carrell, Angelica Herrador, Anthony Estrada, Rachel Bird, Felix Alonzo, Krista Parry, Anita Thompson, James Egan, Myranda Sanchez, Selina Nunez, and Hugo Hernandez[1] filed this action on December 27, 2023 against Defendant Reliant Real Estate Management, Inc. (“Defendant”). On May 2, 2024, Plaintiffs Anita Thompson, James Egan, Myranda Sanchez, Selina Nunez, and Hugo Hernandez (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”). The FAC alleges one cause of action for violations of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act.

Defendant now moves for an order transferring this action for trial to the Orange County Superior Court or, in the alternative, “Santa Monica County Superior Court.”[2] Plaintiffs oppose.

“Under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 392 et seq., a plaintiff may file an action or proceeding in various locations, depending on the classification of the action and the classification of the parties. Where there are multiple parties and causes of action, venue may be proper in more than one county. Under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 397, subdivision (a), [w]hen the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court, the court may, upon motion, change the place of trial. Alternately, under [Code of Civil Procedure] section 397, subdivision (c), the court has discretion to transfer the case to another county [w]hen the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change, even if the complaint was filed in a proper county.” ((Rycz v. Superior Court (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 824, 835-836 [internal quotations and citations omitted].)

In Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 309, 313-314, the Court of Appeal noted that “[t]he proper place for trial is fixed by statutory scheme. The defendant in this action is a corporation, and, as a result, Code of Civil Procedure…section 395.5 applies and supplies multiple possible venue options: ‘A corporation or association may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated … .’…Thus, under the legislative scheme, venue may be proper in more than one county, depending on the particular facts of a case. Generally, when venue is proper in more than one county, a plaintiff has the choice of where to file the action from among the available options. There is a presumption that the county in which the plaintiff chose to file the action is the proper county. The burden rests on the party seeking a change of venue to defeat the plaintiff’s presumptively correct choice of court.” (Internal citations omitted.)

In the instant motion, Defendant first asserts that “a venue transfer to Orange County is mandatory in this action.” (Mot. at p. 5:17.) Defendant cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (a), which provides that “[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.”

Defendant asserts that its principal place of business is Orange County. Exhibit “B” to Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is a State of California, Office of the Secretary of State, “Statement of Information,” filed on September 21, 2023. (Defendant’s RJN, Ex. B.) The Statement of Information lists Reliant Real Estate Management, Inc., and a “Principal Address” of 207 West 20th Street, Santa Ana, CA 92706. (Ibid.) As set forth above, under Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5, “[a] corporation or association may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases.” (Emphasis added.)

In addition, Defendant notes that “[v]enue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made.” ((Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482.) The instant motion was filed on January 17, 2024, before the FAC was filed on May 2, 2024. The original Complaint in this action alleges, inter alia, that “Defendants…requested and obtained investigative consumer reports about the Plaintiffs during the processing of the Plaintiffs’ application for an apartment home at the Paradise Garden Apartments, Charter Oaks Apartments, Vues on Gordon Apartments, Goldwyn Apartments, Whiffle Tree Apartments, Arbor Ranch Apartments, Lincoln Village Apartments and the Mediterra Apartments without complying with the mandatory requirements, disclosures and authorizations required under the ICRAA statute.” (Compl., ¶ 24.)[3]

Defendant asserts that “liability arises in the county where Defendant processed and obtained the ‘investigative consumer report’ because that is where Defendant allegedly violated the provisions ICRAA. There are no allegations as to which county the alleged violations arose in, and that pleading ambiguity means that venue is proper only in Orange County.” (Mot. at p. 6:24-27.) Defendant cites to Haurat v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 330, 334, where the Court of Appeal noted that “[i]n passing upon a motion for a change of venue the court must take the pleading as it is written; its sufficiency is not before the court, and the court may not speculate upon the appearance of the complaint after it is challenged by demurrer or as it may be tested by motions to strike. All ambiguities will be construed against the pleader to the end that a defendant shall not be deprived improperly of his fundamental right to have the cause tried in the county of his residence.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.)

In the opposition, Plaintiff asserts that “Defendant has submitted evidence establishing that its principal place of business is located in Orange County, not Los Angeles County. Defendant has shown that Orange County is a proper venue for this action…However, Defendant has not shown that Orange County is the only county in which Plaintiffs were permitted to file this action.” (Opp’n at pp. 2:25-3:2.) But Plaintiff does not appear to address Defendant’s additional argument that the alleged “liability arises” where Defendant processed and obtained the “investigative consumer report.” ((Code Civ. Proc., § 395.5.) Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant’s principal place of business is in Orange County. In addition, Plaintiff’s opposition does not appear to contain any argument that a “contract is made or is to be performed” in Los Angeles County, that “the obligation or liability arises” in Los Angeles County, or that “the breach occurs” in Los Angeles County. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 395.5.)[4]

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant has met its burden of demonstrating that Orange County is the proper venue.[5]

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Defendant’s motion for an order transferring this action for trial to the Superior Court of Orange County. Defendant’s alternative request to transfer this action to the “Santa Monica County Superior Court” is denied.

[1]On March 13, 2024, plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal of Ashley Carrell, Angelica Herrador, Anthony Estrada, Rachel Bird, Felix Alonzo, and Krista Parry. Dismissal was entered on March 13, 2024.

[2]There is no “Santa Monica County Superior Court.” There is a Santa Monica Courthouse located in the City of Santa Monica in Los Angeles County.

[3]The FAC similarly alleges that “Defendants…requested and obtained investigative consumer reports about the Plaintiffs during the processing of the Plaintiffs’ application for apartment homes at the Whiffle Tree Apartments, Arbor Ranch Apartments, Mediterra Apartments and Lincoln Village Apartments without complying with the mandatory requirements, disclosures and authorizations required under the ICRAA statute.” (FAC, ¶ 17.)

[4]The instant action does not appear to involve any alleged contract or breach of contract. Defendant asserts that “venue based on ‘where the contract is made or is to be performed’ does not apply.” (Reply at p. 4:7-8.)

[5]In light of the foregoing, the Court need not and does not consider Defendant’s alternative request to transfer this action to “Santa Monica County Superior Court.”

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50