Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV27573, Date: 2025-02-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV27573    Hearing Date: February 4, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 4, 2024                   TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Christina Carrillo v. Douglas Elliman of California, Inc. et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV27573           

MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

MOVING PARTY:               Defendants Douglas Elliman of California Inc; Douglas Elliman of California Financial, LLC, and Stephen Kolter

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Christina Carrillo

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an employment discrimination action that was filed on October 21, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that she was sexually harassed by her manager and by other agents of the corporate defendants.

Defendants move to transfer venue to Orange County.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendants move to transfer venue to Orange County.

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of (A) the corporate Defendants’ 2023 Statement of Information filed with the Secretary of State listing their principal place of business at 150 El Camino Drive, Suite 150, Beverly Hills CA 90212; and (B)-(C) certain webpages listing the work addresses of individuals named in the Complaint. Plaintiff’s request No. 1 is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records). As to requests Nos. 2 and 3, these materials may be judicially noticed as facts derived from the opposing party’s public website.  (Ampex Corp. v. Cargle (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1569, 1573-1574.) 

Improper Venue

            Defendants first argue that transfer of this action is mandatory because Los Angeles is not a proper venue for this dispute.

Code of Civil Procedure section 396b(a) provides: 

(a)¿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(a), bold emphasis and underlining added.)  Thus, transfer is mandatory under section 396b(a) if the action was not filed in the proper court. “The burden rests on the party seeking change of venue to defeat the plaintiff’s presumptively correct choice of court.” (Buran Equip. Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1662, 1666.) For actions which are brought pursuant to the Fair Employment and Housing Act, in whole or in part, the action “may be brought in any county in the state in which the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, in the county in which the records relevant to the practice are maintained and administered, or in the county in which the aggrieved person would have worked or would have had access to the public accommodation but for the alleged unlawful practice, but if the defendant is not found within any of these counties, an action may be brought within the county of the defendant’s residence or principal office.” (Gov. Code § 12965(c)(3).)

            Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that she was subjected to a campaign harassment by  her manager, Defendant Kolter, and by other agents of the corporate Defendants, beginning in July 2022 through her resignation on October 9, 2024. (Complaint ¶¶ 18-29.) With respect to venue, the Complaint alleges that the wrongful conduct took place in the County of Los Angeles and that records relevant to the action are maintained at the corporate Defendants’ principal place of business, located at 150 El Camino Drive Suite 150, Beverly Hills, CA 90212, also in the County of Los Angeles.  (Complaint ¶ 14.) The Complaint explicitly asserts misconduct by Defendant Kolter and the Altman brothers, all of whom have offices in Los Angeles.  (RJN, Exh. B & C.)  On the other side of the coin, the Complaint also describes Plaintiff reporting the harassment to supervisors at the corporate Defendants’ office in Newport Beach, located in Orange County. (¶ 23.) In addition, the Complaint includes a screenshot of the corporate Defendants’ website which lists Plaintiff as being employed in the Newport Beach office. (Complaint ¶ 31 Fig. 1.)

            Defendants argue that, because Plaintiff’s Complaint admits she was employed in the Newport Beach office, the Complaint demonstrates that the violations took place in that office, that relevant records are located in Orange County, and Plaintiff would have continued to work in Orange County but for the practice. In the Court’s view, Defendant’s argument exceeds the bounds of what these admissions can establish. Certainly, where the allegations indicate that Plaintiff was employed in an Orange County branch office, those admissions tend to establish that Plaintiff would have continued working in that office but for the alleged harassment. However, Defendants stretch those allegations too far in arguing that the entirety of the unlawful conduct must have occurred in Orange County, especially where the Complaint expressly alleges a contrary position. Of greater significance, Defendants’ conclusion that relevant records are maintained in Orange County is just that: a conclusion, unsupported by facts or evidence and directly contradicted by express allegations in the Complaint. The burden rests with Defendants to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s choice of venue—which is presumptively correct—is not proper. (Buran Equip Co., supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at 1666.) Here, however, Defendants have only demonstrated that Orange County is one proper venue for this action, without also establishing that Los Angeles County is an improper venue, such that this action should be transferred. (See Easton v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 243, 245-46.)

Discretionary Transfer

Defendants contend, in the alternative, that the Court should exercise its discretionary authority to transfer venue to Orange County for the convenience of witnesses.

Code of Civil Procedure section 397 grants the Court discretionary authority to change the place of trial in certain cases, including, as relevant here: 

(a)¿When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court. 

. . . 

(c)¿When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. 

. . . 

(Code Civ. Proc. § 397(a), (c).) 

Defendants contend that all the complained-of conduct occurred in Orange County and all the witnesses and evidence are likewise located in Orange County. Defendants therefore argue that the case should be transferred to promote the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice. This argument is premature. “The court will not entertain a motion for change of venue on the ground of convenience of witnesses when the defendant has not filed an answer, for the reason that until the issues are joined the court cannot determine what testimony will be material.” (Cholakian & Associates v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 361, 368.)  Here, Defendants have not filed an answer to the Complaint. Thus, under binding precedent, the Court cannot entertain a request to transfer venue on this basis.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue is DENIED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 4, 2025                                ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.