The court may, on timely motion, “change the place of trial in the following cases:
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 397.)
The court has to overcome this hurdle before applying those factors:
“Except 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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 395(a); Haurat v. Super. Ct. for L.A. Cty (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 330, 333; Karson Indus., Inc. v. Super. Ct. of Contra Costa Cty (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 7, 9.)
“Generally, the filing of a motion for change of venue operates as a supersedeas or stay of proceedings, and the court cannot rule on other substantive issues while the motion for change of venue is pending.” (Thompson v. Thames (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1296, 1303-1304; Moore v. Powell (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 583, 587; Pickwick Stages System v. Super. Ct. in and for L.A. County (1934) 138 Cal.App. 448, 449.)
“The purpose of this provision ‘is to guard against local bias that may exist in favor of litigants within a county as against those from without the county, and to ensure that both parties have a trial on neutral territory.’” (Arntz Builders v. Super. Ct. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1203.)
“There is no need for a party seeking transfer to demonstrate actual prejudice because the statute ‘is designed to obviate the appearance of prejudice as well as actual prejudice or bias.’” (Id.) “[A]s the statute is remedial in its purpose, it should receive a liberal construction which will promote rather than frustrate the policy behind the law.” (Id.)
Any ambiguities in the complaint will be construed against the plaintiff towards the end that the defendant will not be deprived of the right to a trial in the county of his or her residence. (Neet v. Holmes (1942) 19 Cal.2d 605, 612.) “Failure to move for change of venue on the ground of residence at the time of demurrer or answer constitutes a waiver of the right to have venue changed.” (Hennigan v. Boren (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 810, 816.)
A judge may not consider the convenience of the parties in determining the motion. (Wrin v. Ohlandt (1931) 213 Cal.158, 160.)“[I]f 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).)
“The moving party must overcome the presumption that the plaintiff has selected the proper venue. The defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds.” (Fontaine v. Super. Ct. (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836; Archer v. Super. Ct. In and For Humboldt County (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 417, 420; California State Parks Foundation v. Super. Ct. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 826, 833; Mission Imports, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 928.) The moving party may submit declarations containing admissible evidence in support of the motion to transfer venue. (Mission Imports, supra, 31 Cal.3d at 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.” (Id.)
“It is well settled that a motion for change of venue grounded upon the convenience of witnesses rests largely in the discretion of the trial court.” (Wrin v. Ohlandt (1931) 213 Cal. 158, 159.)
“Convenience of witnesses” may be shown by the fact that the residence of all witnesses is in the county to which the transfer is requested. (Richfield Hotel Management, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 222, 227.)
The declaration must show that each witness’s testimony is material, necessary, and admissible. (J.C. Millett Co. V. Latchford-Marble Glass Co. (1959) 167 Cal.App.2d 218, 225; Edwards v. Pierson (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 72, 75; Harden v. Skinner & Hammond (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 750, 755.) It must also state why it would be inconvenient for these witnesses to appear in the court in which the action in pending but need not show that the witnesses reside in the proposed transferee county because the crucial factor is their convenience and not their residency. (Willingham v. Pecora (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 289, 294.)
Where a party moves to transfer venue based on the convenience of witnesses, it must submit affidavits showing the names of each witness expected to testify for both parties, the substance of their expected testimony, whether the witness has been deposed or given a statement, the reasons why it would be inconvenient for the witnesses to appear, and the reasons why the ends of justice would be promoted by transfer to a different county. (Juneau v. Juneau (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 14, 16; Edwards v. Pierson (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 72, 75.)
“Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made.” (Brown v. Super. Ct. (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482.) A plaintiff’s choice of venue is presumed to be correct. (Thielen v. Super. Ct. of L.A. County (1963) 219 Cal.App.2d 217, 218.)
A motion to transfer venue pursuant to 397(c) may be made within a “reasonable time.” (Cooney v. Cooney (1944) 25 Cal.2d 202, 208.)
Villasenor, (collectively "Defendants") to transfer venue to the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno is DENIED. The alternative request to transfer venue to the Superior Court of California, County of King is DENIED. Defendants present four separate arguments supporting their request for venue. Plaintiff Paul John Denham ("Plaintiff") opposes the motion.
Jan 13, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Sacramento County, CA
On November 30, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange. Trial is set for November 5, 2021. PARTY’S REQUEST Defendants request an order transferring the venue of this action to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 397, subdivision (c).
Jan 11, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
On September 4, 2020, Wheeler advised that “[p]er our emails, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement on a stipulation to transfer venue” and requested that Defendant “please file a Motion to Transfer Venue or Answer within the next thirty (30 days” to avoid Plaintiff seeking a default on October 4, 2020. (Id.)
Jan 11, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Code § 20020 Breach of fiduciary duty Breach of obligation of good faith and fair dealing Intentional interference with contractual relations Breach of contract Unjust enrichment Unfair business practices On September 16, 2020, this Court denied OC Discount’s Motion to Quash Service On December 7, 2020, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer Venue to Orange County, CA. On December 18, 2020, Plaintiffs filed the instant Ex Parte Application to Stay Arbitration.
Jan 07, 2021
Business
Intellectual Property
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants argue that this Court is "not the proper court," which is grounds to transfer venue on a discretionary basis. Defendants argue that the instant court is not the proper court citing Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 872. That case, however, only held that the waiver of the ability to bring a motion to transfer venue under Code Civ. Proc. § 396b does not correspondingly waive the ability to bring a motion to transfer venue under Code Civ.
Jan 07, 2021
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Conclusion Defendants' motion to transfer venue to Los Angeles County is GRANTED. Defendants' request for fees is granted. Defendants are directed to serve notice on all parties within two court days of this ruling.
Jan 07, 2021
Business
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
Lehmer’s (“Defendant”) motion to transfer venue to Cook County, Illinois and to dismiss this action for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED, as follows. (C.C.P. secs. 396b, 397.) As a preliminary matter, Defendant provided no supporting declaration(s) to authenticate the promissory note exhibit upon which he solely relies for its motion to transfer venue outside of California and to dismiss this action.
Jan 07, 2021
Orange County, CA
Defendant MNG Enterprise and Stone Services Inc’s motion to transfer venue to Orange County is DENIED. On October 2, 2020, Plaintiff Logan Foster filed the instant breach of contract/fraud suit against Defendants MNG Enterprise, Puffy Delivery Inc., Stone Services Inc. The operative First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants operate an online ordering platform and delivery service for cannabis products.
Jan 07, 2021
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
Defendants argue that this Court is "not the proper court," which is grounds to transfer venue on a discretionary basis. Defendants argue that the instant court is not the proper court citing Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 872. That case, however, only held that the waiver of the ability to bring a motion to transfer venue under Code Civ. Proc. § 396b does not correspondingly waive the ability to bring a motion to transfer venue under Code Civ.
Jan 07, 2021
Contract
Contract - Other
San Diego County, CA
Conclusion Defendants' motion to transfer venue to Los Angeles County is GRANTED. Defendants' request for fees is granted. Defendants are directed to serve notice on all parties within two court days of this ruling.
Jan 07, 2021
Business
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
TENTATIVE RULING Defendant's motion to transfer venue is DENIED. Discussion The general rule is that the superior court in the county where the defendant resides at the commencement of the action is the proper court for trial. CCP § 395(a).
Jan 07, 2021
Employment
Other Employment
San Diego County, CA
TENTATIVE RULING Defendant's motion to transfer venue is DENIED. Discussion The general rule is that the superior court in the county where the defendant resides at the commencement of the action is the proper court for trial. CCP § 395(a).
Jan 07, 2021
Employment
Other Employment
San Diego County, CA
Further, where the complaint and record are silent as to the residence of one or more of the defendants, “the presumption is that the defendants are residents of the county wherein the action is commenced” and the burden of proof is on the party seeking to transfer venue that ALL defendants reside in a different county. (Id.) Here, the evidence shows that Lorraine Ash D.O.; Jeffrey Chen D.O.; Gary S.
Jan 06, 2021
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
The motion to transfer venue is granted. As the grounds for transfer are based on the commencement of the action in an improper court, Plaintiff shall pay the transfer fees. (Code Civ. Proc. § 399(a).) This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47.
Jan 06, 2021
Other
Intellectual Property
Sacramento County, CA
The unopposed motion of Plaintiff Sunlan-020105, LLC to transfer venue of this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Sutter is GRANTED. Plaintiff commenced this action in Sacramento County based on the mistaken belief that the sole defendant, David Velasco ("Defendant"), was a resident of Sacramento County at the time the action was commenced. Plaintiff has subsequently learned that Defendant was a resident of Sutter County at the time the action was commenced.
Jan 06, 2021
Collections
Collections
Sacramento County, CA
The Court further notes that Plaintiffs dispute that Defendant’s motion to dismiss operates to suspend this Court’s jurisdiction to decide other pending matters, but Plaintiffs’ dispute is a substantive one—Plaintiffs argue that Defendant has waived its right to transfer venue. Therefore, in an abundance of caution, the Court will continue the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and demurrer until after a determination is made on Defendant’s motion to dismiss on January 12, 2021.
Jan 06, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
(i) itself, now provides that a plaintiff may not voluntarily dismiss when there is a motion to transfer venue pending. (Civ. Proc. Code § 581(i)). It might reasonably be argued that a motion for forum nonconveniens is analogous to a motion to transfer venue given that they both relate to the propriety of the proper court for trial of the case, thus precluding a voluntary dismissal by analogy to CCP 581(i).
Jan 05, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Accordingly, the motion to transfer venue is GRANTED, and venue is ordered transferred to San Diego County.
Jan 04, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Further, where the complaint and record are silent as to the residence of one or more of the defendants, “the presumption is that the defendants are residents of the county wherein the action is commenced” and the burden of proof is on the party seeking to transfer venue that all defendants reside in a different county. (Id.)
Dec 23, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
.: 20STCV23821 Matter:Motion to Transfer Venue Moving Party:Defendants BMW of North America, LLC, and Indigo Blue & White Motorcars, LLC d/b/a BMW of Palm Springs Responding Party:Plaintiff Monica R. Smith Tentative Ruling:The Motion to Transfer Venue is denied. This is a lemon law matter. Defendants BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW”) and Indigo Blue & White Motorcars, LLC d/b/a BMW of Palm Springs (“Palm”) seek to transfer venue to Riverside County. (Code Civ.
Dec 22, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Phillips in support of the motion to transfer venue filed in this case when it was in the Ventura court; #13, articles of incorporation for The Phillips Firm, APC, filed with the California Secretary of State on December 17, 2018; and #14, the statement of information that the corporation filed with the California Secretary of State on January 22, 2019. Chappell has not opposed the request.
Dec 18, 2020
Santa Barbara County, CA
The motion of Defendant Sierra Pacific Industries ("Defendant") to transfer venue of this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Shasta is GRANTED. This is an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained by Plaintiff David Marchart in Plumas County. Defendant is a corporation with its principal place of business in Shasta County. Based on these facts and relying on Code of Civ. Proc. § 395.5, Defendant contends venue is improper in Sacramento County and proper in Shasta County.
Dec 16, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Sacramento County, CA
Conclusion: Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue to Butte County is DENIED, as are the Sanctions
Dec 14, 2020
Real Property
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to transfer venue and DENIES Defendant’s request for costs and fees as this motion is unsuccessful.
Dec 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1662, 1665 (“a motion to transfer venue based on witness convenience cannot be made before an answer is filed.”); De Long v. De Long (1954) 127 Cal.App.2d 373, 374 (“since no answer had been filed the trial court properly denied the motion made upon the ground of the convenience of witnesses.”); Delgado v.
Dec 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.