Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 24STCV08178, Date: 2025-01-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV08178 Hearing Date: January 31, 2025 Dept: 45
Silvia Janeth
Gutierrez, et al. v. American Honda Motor Company
Motion to Transfer Venue
Date of Hearing: January
31, 2025 Trial
Date: March 30, 2026
Department: 45 Case
No.: 24STCV08178
Moving Party: Defendant Honda Motor Company, Inc.
Responding Party: Plaintiffs
Silva Janeth Gutierrez and Lupe Gutierrez
BACKGROUND
On April 2, 2024, Plaintiffs Silvia
Janeth Gutierrez and Lupe Gutierrez (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against
Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. (“AHM”) and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, alleging causes of action for: (1) Violation of Civil Code Section
1793.2, Subdivision (d); (2) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2,
Subdivision (b); (3) Violation of Civil Code Section 1793.2, Subdivision
(a)(3); (4) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and (5) Fraudulent
Inducement – Concealment.
On November 12, 2024, Defendant AHM
filed the instant Motion to Transfer Venue. On December 6, 2024, Plaintiffs
filed an Opposition. On January 31, 2024, Defendant AHM filed a Reply.
[Tentative] Ruling
Defendant American Honda Motor Company,
Inc’s Motion to Transfer Venue is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure Section 395, subdivision (a), “[e]xcept 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… Subject to subdivision (b), if a defendant has
contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, the superior
court in the county where the obligation is to be performed, where the contract
in fact was entered into, or where the defendant or any defendant resides at
the commencement of the action is a proper court for the trial of an action
founded on that obligation, and the county where the obligation is incurred is
the county where it is to be performed, unless there is a special contract in
writing to the contrary.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a). emphasis
added.)
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 396b, subd. (a) and 397, subd.
(a) emphasis added.)
ANALYSIS
Request for
Judicial Notice
Plaintiffs
request judicial notice of Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc’s
Statement of Information Corporation form, dated November 19, 2024, attached as
Exhibit A.
The request
for judicial notice is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code Sections 452,
subdivision (h) and 453.
Motion to
Transfer Venue
Defendant American Honda Motor Company,
Inc. (“AHM”) moves for an order transferring this lawsuit to Fresno County
Superior Court. This motion is made on the grounds that Fresno County is the
better forum for this case. Plaintiffs oppose.
First, the Court notes that venue is
proper in Los Angeles County per Code of Civil Procedure Section 395.5, which
states: “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395.5.)
Defendant AHM admits that it’s corporate office is located in Los Angeles
County. However, Defendant AHM argues the Plaintiffs, subject vehicle,
dealerships involved in the subject vehicles’ repair and diagnosis, and
dealership involved in the sales transaction for which Plaintiff’s claims are
based upon are located in Fresno County. Furthermore, AHM contends the
fraudulent inducement – concealment claim is based on a contractual agreement
that was negotiated and formed in Fresno County. As such, AHM contends Fresno
County is convenient for the non-party witnesses as opposed to Los Angeles
County.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff contends
Defendant AHM may not invoke Code of Civil Procedure Section 395 because it is
a corporate defendant. The Court agrees. For venue purposes, Code of Civil
Procedure Section 395 does not apply to actions against corporations only
natural persons. (See Swartz v. California Olive Growers' Packing Corp.
(1942) 56 Cal.App.2d 168, 172; Blumer v. Kirkman Corp. (1952) 38 Cal.2d
480, 485.) Likewise, Plaintiff contends Defendant AHM cannot invoke Code of
Civil Procedure Section 397 to support transfer of venue because it has not
filed an Answer to Complaint. As previously discussed, Defendant AHM’s motion
is made primarily on the grounds of convenience of the prospective witnesses.
Under California law, a motion for transfer of venue on the grounds of
convenience of witnesses cannot be entertained by the court when the moving
party has only appeared via demurrer and not by answer because the court cannot
determine the materiality and relevance of the prospective witnesses. (See Russello
v. Mori (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 828, 834 citing De Long v. De Long
(1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 373, 374.)
In reply, Defendant AHM states it seeks
discretionary transfer to Sacramento County under section 397. The Court
declines Defendant AHM’s request for the reasons stated above. Further,
Defendant AHM’s moving paper requests transferring venue to Fresno County, not
Sacramento County.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, the motion to transfer venue is DENIED.