Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22STCV11417, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV11417 Hearing Date: January 23, 2025 Dept: 45
HEARING
DATE:
CASE
NUMBER:
CASE
NAME:
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles
RESPONDING
PARTY: Plaintiff Linda Scott
TRIAL
DATE:
PROOF
OF SERVICE: Yes
MOTION: Motion to Transfer to Another
Judicial District
RECOMMENDED
RULING: GRANT.
Background
On May 1, 2023, Plaintiff Linda Scott filed
this action against the Superior Court of California arising out of an alleged
slip and fall incident on court premises. The First Amended Complaint, filed on
June 8, 2023 identified the location of the alleged incident as the Glendale
Courthouse. Plaintiff added the State of California and the Judicial Council of
California as defendants on August 26, 2024.
Defendant Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles filed
an answer on July 10, 2023.
Motion
On October 28, 2024, Defendant Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles filed the instant motion seeking to
transfer this action to another courthouse.
Opposition
In opposition, Plaintiff contends Defendant
was aware of the basis for its motion throughout the litigation and its request
constitutes impermissible judge-shopping.
Reply
In reply, Defendant notes Plaintiffs
opposition was not supported by evidence or authority and argues the transfer
is warranted.
Motion
to Transfer Between Districts
Standard
The
Local Rules of the Los Angeles Superior Court govern the assignment of cases
between its districts and departments. (Code Civ. Proc. § 402.) LASC Local Rule
2.3(b)(2) authorizes Department 1 to transfer civil cases from one judicial
district to another via a noticed motion on three enumerated grounds: (1) when
the case was filed in an improper district; (2) for the convenience of
witnesses; or (3) to promote the ends of justice.
(LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).)
Discussion
Defendant
moves the court to transfer the action away from the Glendale Courthouse,
citing Code of Civil Procedure section 397(b) and 397(c) as well as Los Angeles
Superior Court Local Rules, rule 2.3(b).
However,
Code of Civil Procedure section 397 applies to transfers between courts, not
transfers within districts of the same court. (Glade v. Glade (1995) 38
Cal.App.4th 1441, 1449 (“Even though a superior court is divided into branches
or departments, pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 4,
there is only one superior court in a county and jurisdiction is therefore
vested in that court, not in any particular judge or department. Whether
sitting separately or together, the judges hold but one and the same court.”).)
Considering that the same language appears in both LASC
Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) and Code of Civil Procedure § 397(c), the Court finds that
a party acting under the authority of Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule
2.3(b)(2) should bear the burden of proof if it seeks a district transfer out
of a presumptively correct forum, just as in motions for change of proper venue
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397(c). (See Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 396, 401.) However,
there is no equivalent provision in Local Rule 2.3(b) mirroring the language of
Code of Civil Procedure section 397(b): “the court may, on motion, change the
place of trial in the following cases: . . . When there is reason to believe
that an impartial trial cannot be had therein.” Accordingly, the Court reviews Defendant’s
motion solely based upon the grounds enumerated in Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).
Plaintiff
alleges she fell while walking toward the front door of the Glendale
Courthouse. (Overton Decl. Ex. 1, Scott Depo. at 24:3-7; 26:23-24; 28:8-18.) Defendant
argues it cannot have a fair trial in the Glendale Courthouse because the jury
will interact with the location of the alleged fall. Plaintiff’s opposition,
asserting delay and forum shopping, is not supported by legal authority or
evidence.
Generally,
jurors are instructed not to view the scene of an incident. (See e.g. CACI 100
(“Do not visit or view the scene of any event involved in this case . . . If
you happen to pass by the scene, do not stop or investigate.”) Defendant notes courts
have found juror misconduct where the jurors receive relevant information
outside of trial evidence. (In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634, 647
(“It is improper for a juror to receive information outside of court about the
pending case”); People v. Wilson (2008)
44 Cal.4th 758, 829 quoting Turner v.
Louisiana (1965) 379 U.S. 466, 472–473 (“A juror commits misconduct if the
juror conducts an independent investigation of the facts . . . [or] brings
outside evidence into the jury room. . . . ‘Juror misconduct, such as the
receipt of information about a party or the case that was not part of the
evidence received at trial, leads to a presumption that the defendant was
prejudiced thereby and may establish juror bias.’”).) “Jurors are not supposed to receive or
communicate to fellow jurors information from sources outside the evidence
presented in court. If they do, they are guilty of misconduct. . . . A
presumption of prejudice arises from [a] finding that juror misconduct
occurred.” (Lankster v. Alpha Beta Co. (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 678, 682
(citations omitted).) Due to the location of the incident, the jurors will be
placed in the untenable position of having to view the site of the accident as
they come to court each day.
The
Court finds Defendant met its burden to demonstrate a transfer will promote the
ends of justice. (LASC Local Rules, rule 2.3(b)(2).) “Where there is a showing
that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by
the change and there is absolutely no showing whatever to the contrary, a
denial of the motion to change venue is an abuse of discretion, there being no
conflict of evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court.” (Pearson
v. Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d
69, 78.)
The action
shall be reassigned to the Alhambra Courthouse Northeast District of the Los
Angeles Superior Court.
Conclusion
Defendant’s
Motion to Transfer to Another Judicial District is GRANTED. The action shall be
reassigned to the Alhambra Courthouse in the Northeast District of the Los
Angeles Superior Court.
Notice
of reassignment to issue shortly.
Counsel
for moving party to give notice.