Judge: William Y. Wood, Case: 37-2023-00045120-CU-PN-NC, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

SOUTH BUILDING TENTATIVE RULINGS - April 10, 2024

04/12/2024  01:30:00 PM  N-29 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:William Y Wood

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Professional Negligence Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00045120-CU-PN-NC RICHARDS VS BREDDAN [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike, 01/10/2024

Defendants Matthew A. Breddan and The Reap-Rickett Law Firm's motion to change venue from the San Diego Superior Court to the Los Angeles Superior Court (ROA # 18) is granted. Defendants' request for judicial notice (ROA # 19) dated January 10, 2024 is granted.

The general rule is that a change of venue is proper where the moving party shows that: (a) the action is proper in the county to which the movant seeks transfer and (b) the county in which the action was filed was improper under any theory. Easton v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 243, 245-246. Venue is proper where: (a) the defendant(s) resides; (b) where the plaintiff's property was damaged; (c) where the plaintiff was injured; or (d) where the contract was made, signed, performed, or breached. CCP §§ 395(a) and (b). 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.' Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego Cty. (2013) 215 Cal. App. 4th 309, 313. 'Under the general rules regarding where a case is to be tried when multiple venues are proper pursuant to the legislature's determination, the plaintiff's choice of venue in filing the lawsuit would prevail.' Id. at 314.

The court has carefully considered the arguments and authorities presented by the parties and is persuaded that the defendants are entitled to a change of venue because the contract between the plaintiffs and defendants at issue in this action contains a venue selection provision of Los Angeles County. Breddan Decl. (ROA # 18), Exhibit A, p. 6 ['If any action is instituted to enforce the terms and conditions of this contract, you and The Firm agree that the exclusive jurisdiction for the action shall be the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.'].

Thus, defendants' motion to transfer venue to Los Angeles County is granted.

Pursuant to CCP § 399, plaintiff shall pay all fees and costs associated with the transfer. However, the court declines to award sanctions against the plaintiff as requested by the defendants.

The court declines to rule on the pending motion to strike portions of the complaint (ROA # 17) and will leave those issues to be resolved by the Los Angeles County trial court assigned to hear this case.

This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing (in person or remote) at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, April 12, 2024. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the court as of Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3110852 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  RICHARDS VS BREDDAN [IMAGED]  37-2023-00045120-CU-PN-NC April 12, 2024. If the parties are satisfied with the court's tentative ruling or do not otherwise wish to argue the motion, they are encouraged to give notice to the court and each other of their intention not to appear, though this notice is not required.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3110852