Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22STCV15463, Date: 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV15463    Hearing Date: August 11, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On May 10, 2022, plaintiff Lorie Benson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants Fullerton Island Village Apartments (“Fullerton Island”) and Ralph Raulli (“Raulli”) (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiff asserts causes of action for negligence and premises liability and alleges that on April 28, 2021, she tripped and fell due to a defective stairway consisting of improperly designed, maintained, repaired, and constructed steps and railing.  The steps and railing were located on property that Fullerton Island allegedly “owned, managed, repaired, maintained and/or controlled or was responsible for maintaining, cleaning, repairing, or managing.”  (Compl., ¶ 5.)  Plaintiff additionally alleges that Raulli was the managing member of Fullerton Island and was responsible for “designing, constructing, managing, repairing, maintaining, cleaning and/or controlling” the property.  (Compl., ¶ 6.) 

On June 13, 2022, Defendants filed this motion for an order transferring the action to Orange County Superior Court.  Defendants argue that this case should not belong in Los Angeles County Superior Court because Raulli is a sham defendant.  (Motion, 3:25-26.)  Instead, Defendants argue that this action should have been filed in Orange County Superior Court because Plaintiff resides in Orange County, the property is located in Orange County, and Fullerton Island does business in Orange County.  (Motion, 3:22-24.)  Defendants contend that Raulli’s mere role as a managing member of Fullerton Island is an insufficient allegation to state a cause of action and Plaintiff fails to identify any specific tortious conduct.  (Motion, 3:26-4:4.) 

On timely motion, the court must order a transfer of venue “when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 396b, 397(a).)  In an action involving personal injuries, a venue is proper where a defendant resides or where the injuries occurred.   (Code Civ. Proc., § 395(a).)  The burden is on the moving party to establish facts justifying the transfer.  (Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 928.)  Absent “an affirmative showing to the contrary, the presumption is that the county in which the title of the action shows that it is brought is, prima facie, the proper county for the commencement and trial of the action.”  (Ibid.; Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.)

Defendants argue that Raulli is merely a managing member of Fullerton Island and is not involved in the day-to-day management of the premises and did not design, construct, or repair the stairs or handrail where Plaintiff claims to have fallen.  Raulli declares that he became the managing member of Fullerton Island 2 years ago and that Fullerton Island has always used a property management company to manage the property.  (Motion, Raulli Decl., ¶¶ 2-3.)  Currently, the property manager is Western Consolidated Equities (“WCE”).  WCE was also managing the property in April 2021 when Plaintiff was injured.  (Raulli Decl., ¶ 3.)  Raulli further declares the following: “I do not handle the day to day management of the property.  I did not design or construct the apartment building or the stairways at the apartment building.  I do not personally make repairs to the property, maintain the property, or clean the property.  Rather, those matters are handled by the property management company.  I did not personally design, maintain, repair, clean, or construct the stairs or railing where plaintiff allegedly fell on April 28, 2021.  I was not present when plaintiff allegedly fell on the property on April 28, 2021.”  (Raulli Decl., ¶ 4.) 

In determining the question whether a resident defendant has been joined solely for the purpose of having the action tried in the county of his residence “the real issue for determination by the trial court was whether plaintiff, in joining the resident defendant as a party, had reasonable grounds for the belief in good faith that the plaintiff had a cause of action against the resident defendant.”  (Gottesfeld v. Richmaid Ice Cream Co. (1953) 115 Cal.App.2d 854, 856.)  “[U]pon the hearing of such motion, the court should not try, upon conflicting affidavits, the issues of fact going to the merits of the cause of action stated against the resident defendant.”  (Ibid.) 

Here, Plaintiff has alleged that Raulli is a resident of Los Angeles County, a fact which Raulli does not dispute.  Plaintiff argues that she has a “reasonable and good faith belief that Mr. Raulli is a proper Defendant in this action since the deficiencies in the Subject Premises relate to structural problems with the subject stairway that would reasonably fall outside the scope of the day-to-day operations and management of the Subject Premises.”  (Opp., 7:16-20.)  Plaintiff cites to People v. Pacific Landmark (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1213, to support her assertion that the managing member of LLC may be liable for their personal participation in tortious or criminal conduct, even when performing their duties as manager.  Plaintiff claims that in this circumstance, liability is not imposed solely because of Raulli’s status as manager, but because of his or her personal involvement in allowing the dangerous condition to persist and for failing to abate it.  (Id. at 1217.)  Plaintiff also argues that the fact that a property management company was hired does not preclude Raulli from exercising control over the premises. 

On reply, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegations are too boilerplate to assert a cause of action against Raulli.  This argument is the equivalent of a demurrer in the form of a motion to transfer venue.  The Court disagrees with Defendants’ characterization of Plaintiff’s Complaint as “generic, boilerplate conclusions” and Defendants cite to no case law suggesting that Plaintiff must plead a cause of action for negligence or premises liability with specificity and the Court is unaware of none.  

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to transfer venue is DENIED.  

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.