“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.
The court may, on timely motion, &ldquot;change the place of trial in the following cases:
Code of Civ. Proc., § 397.
“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.
“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.
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.
“[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).
“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.
“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. A judge may not consider the convenience of the parties in determining the motion. Wrin v. Ohlandt (1931) 213 Cal.158, 160.
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.
Defendant Melinda Woolf, Quang Vu Dang, and Uhai Blockchain’s motion to transfer venue to is GRANTED. On October 7, 2019, Plaintiff Banyan Trees Limited (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Melinda Woolf (“Woolf”), Quang Vu Dang (“Dang”), and Uhai Blockchain (“Uhai”) (col...
...Defendants filed a motion to transfer the suit to Ventura County. (CCP §§ 397(a), 396b.) On February 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On December 10, 2020, Defendants filed a reply. Legal Standard “Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made.” (Brown v. Superior Court of Alameda County (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482.) Plaintiff’s choice of venue is pres...
Feb 20, 2020
...mitchell, Plaintiff, vs. ford motor company, et al. Defendants. Case No.: 19STCV35312 Hearing Date: February 20, 2020 Hearing Time: 8:30 a.m. [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE Background Plaintiff Timothy F. Mitchell (“Mitchell”) filed this Lemon Law action on October 2, 2019 against Defendants Ford Motor Company and The Ford Store Morgan Hill, Inc. (jointly, “Defendants”...
...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).) On timely motion, the court must order a transfer of an action “[w]hen the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” ((Code Civ. Proc., §§ 397(a), 396b.) The burden is on the moving party to establish that the plaintiff's venue sele...
Feb 20, 2020
... motion to transfer venue of this action to Imperial County is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 395, 395.5) As the moving party, defendant must overcome the presumption that plaintiff has selected a proper venue: “(I)t is the moving defendant's burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff's venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds.” (Fontaine v. Superior Court (Cashcall, Inc.) (2009) 175 C...
Feb 20, 2020
Assigned Judge
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court's tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact the other parties and advise them of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court...
...the motion of Defendant Prudential Security, Inc. to transfer venue to the Superior Court of California, County of Kern is granted. The parties stipulate that Sacramento County is not a proper venue and transfer is appropriate pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 395.5 and 397(a). As the grounds for transfer are based on the action being commenced in an improper venue, Plaintiff shall pay transfer fees. (Code Ci...
Feb 13, 2020
HEARING ON MOTION TO/FOR TRANSFER VENUE TO SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY FILED BY BARCLAYS BANK DELAWARE * TENTATIVE RULING: * The complaint in this case was filed on October 30, 2018 as an “open book” claim seeking payment of an outstanding debt o...
...but documents in the file reflect that the Plaintiff has reason to believe that the Defendant resides in Manteca, CA. in San Joaquin County. Plaintiff’s unopposed motion that this court order the case transferred to San Joaquin County is granted.
Feb 10, 2020
Burch
...Fishback filed joinders in the motion. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition agreeing to transfer venue of this matter to the North District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. The motion to transfer venue is granted.
Feb 6, 2020
...for damages arising out of an alleged assault and battery that occurred at one of Defendant’s San Francisco locations. 2. Motion to Transfer Venue a. Parties’ Positions Defendant moves to transfer venue to San Francisco County and seeks imposition of sanctions against Plaintiff’s attorney of record. Defendant bases its motion on evidence showing the incident occurred in San Francisco County, and Defe...
...opposition to support this assertion. The only named defendant in the action is Jack in the Box. It made the requisite showing that venue is not proper against it in Los Angeles County. The motion to transfer venue is therefore granted. d. Sanctions Defendant seeks sanctions pursuant to CCP §396b(b). Sanctions are appropriate per CCP §396(b). In deciding on fees, the court considers (1) whether an offer to sti...
Feb 4, 2020
2/4/20 Dept. 73 Rafael Ongkeko, Judge presiding ROBERT CLARK “SONNY” WOOD, II, et al. v. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, et al. (19STCV30938) MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE Moving parties: Defendants (and cross-complainants) John Phillips and Wild, Carter & Tipton Opposing parties: Plaintiffs Robert Clark “Sonny” Wood, II, and Access Medical, LLC TENTATIVE RULING Def...
...filed on 2/3/20. Unless Plaintiffs show prejudice from the error, the court grants the RJN pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d). B. Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Is Denied A plaintiff’s choice of venue is presumed to be proper. (Buran Equipment Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1662, 1666.) There are two main theories for changing venue, a mandatory transfer because the court in which the ...
Feb 4, 2020
...CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT JAY YU, Plaintiff(s), vs. RODOLFO SANTAINES, ET AL., Defendant(s). Case No.: 19STCV41151 [TENATATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. February 3, 2020 Plaintiff, Jay Yu filed this action against Defendant, Rodolfo Santaines for damages arising out of an automobile accident. Plaintiff filed the action on 11/15/...
...Ridgeview Lane in La Mirada. On 12/30/19, Defendant filed this motion to transfer venue to Orange County. He contends the accident occurred in Orange County, and he resides in Orange County. He supports the motion with his own declaration, wherein he avers that his daughter lives at the La Mirada address where he was purportedly served, but he moved out of the home approximately five years ago and resides in Fu...
Feb 3, 2020
...The motion is denied. LEGAL STANDARD If a defendant contends that the court should transfer the venue based on the interests of justice or convenience of witnesses, the defendant must move to transfer venue within a reasonable time after all defendants answer. (See Willingham v. Pecora (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 289, 295.) The court may order a transfer of venue even if the court is a proper venue when the tra...
...(Ibid.) Defendant has not satisfied its burden. A motion to transfer venue for the convenience of witnesses should identify the specific witnesses who would suffer inconvenience if the court does not transfer the action, as well as the facts about which those witnesses are likely to testify. (See Juneau v. Juneau (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 14, 16.) Here, Defendant has not identified any witnesses or specific inc...
Jan 31, 2020
...moving counsel is unable to contact the other parties prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person or by telephone. The motion of Defendant CBW Doors, Inc. ("CBW") to transfer this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles is GRANTED. CBW's request for reasonable costs and attorney's fees is DENIED. Plaintiff Window and Door Shop, Inc. ("Plaintiff") ...
... transfer fees. CBW contends it is entitled to a transfer of venue on grounds that the breach of contract causes of action are based on a contract ("Terms & Conditions") with a choice of venue clause limiting venue to Los Angeles County. (See Declaration of Cohen, ¶ 2 and Ex. A.) Choice of venue provisions are valid only if the venue selected is one where venue would ordinarily be proper. (Battaglia Enterprises,...
Jan 31, 2020
Plaintiff's unopposed motion to transfer venue to Los Angeles County is granted. CCP § 396(b), 397(a). The court transfers to matter to the Los Angeles County Superior Court located at 12720 Norwalk Boulevard, Norwalk, California 90650. Plaintiff...
Jan 30, 2020
Plaintiff's unopposed motion to transfer venue to Los Angeles County is granted. CCP § 396(b), 397(a). The court transfers to matter to the Los Angeles County Superior Court located at 12720 Norwalk Boulevard, Norwalk, California 90650. Plaintiff...
Jan 30, 2020
Defendant Sun49er Village RV, LLC's ("Defendant") motion to transfer venue to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Amador is GRANTED. Defendant's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Plaintiffs James Adams' and Madaline Adams' ("Plaintiffs") request ...
...management conference. Pursuant to Code of Civil Proc. § 397(a), Defendant requests a transfer of venue to Amador County on grounds that Sacramento is an improper venue. The Court previously denied a similar motion, without prejudice, based on the insufficiency of the evidence presented in the moving papers. Defendant has now filed this motion with additional evidence. Defendant initially asserted new grounds fo...
Jan 29, 2020
...v. Cancila, et al. Case No.: 19STCV31787 Motion: Motion to Transfer Venue Moving Party: Defendant Philip Cancila Responding Party: Plaintiff Eric Kirkland Tentative Ruling: The Motion to Transfer Venue is granted. On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of contract, (3) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (4) declarator...
...relief. Defendant Philip Cancila seeks to transfer venue to the County of Santa Clara where he resides. Code Civ. Proc. § 395(a) states, 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 th...
Jan 29, 2020
...PRIMEX INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP. Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Action TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED. Moving party is ordered to give notice. Proper Venue Although Ramirez did establish that venue in Kern County would be proper, he did not establish that venue in Los Angeles County was improper. The motion is denied on this ground. Discretionary Transfer Alternatively, "[t]he trial court in ...
...quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 397.) However, only the convenience of nonparty witnesses is considered, and not of parties or counsel. (Wrin v. Ohlandt (1931) 213 Cal. 158, 160.) As to motions to transfer venue based upon convenience, the burden of proof is on moving party to make some evidentiary showing in order to justify the drawing material inferences, such as that witnesses would be inconvenienced by h...
Jan 29, 2020
...law interpreting this former code section (and explained in a treatise cited by Petitioner) found that, if the action to foreclose a lien is not filed in the county in which the property is located or transferred to the county in which the property is located within 90 days after the recording of the claim of lien, the foreclosure action was barred. (Automatic Sprinkler Corp. v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (19...
...Respondent filed its action in Los Angeles County within the 90-day period. However, that action was not transferred to San Diego County until after the 90-day-period had passed. Petitioner argues that this transferred action does not satisfy the statutory requirements and that the claim of lien should therefore be released. However, the plain language of the statute no longer includes the requirement that the a...
Jan 29, 2020
Defendant Marquez Brothers Foods Inc.’s motion to transfer venue to is GRANTED. The joinder motions are likewise granted. Defendant’s objection to the Declaration of Bradley J. Mancuso is OVERRULED. On April 23, 2019, Plaintiff Juan Pablo Mayorga filed the instan...
...instructed and moved to Los Angeles on June 2, 2017. A few weeks later, Mayorga received a notice of separation. On July 16, 2019, MBF filed a motion to transfer venue to Sacramento County. MBF made this motion as to the initial complaint, initially set for August 28, 2019. Apparently, MBF had not realized that the FAC had been filed. On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion. On Augus...
Jan 27, 2020
...empire health plan, lucinda soria, yesenia magana, and chris marin’s motion for change of venue Defendants Inland Empire Health Plan, Lucinda Soria, Yesenia Magana, and Chris Marin’s Motion for Change of Venue to San Bernardino County is GRANTED. Factual Background This is a FEHA employment discrimination action. The First Amended Complaint alleges as follows. Plaintiff Yvette Darlene Perez (“Perez”) was ...
...January 13, 2020. The moving Defendants filed a Reply on January 17, 2020. Discussion MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE Moving Defendants argue that the proper venue for this action in San Bernardino County. (Motion at p. 7.) Moving Defendants contend that the venue is proper in San Bernardino: (1) under Code of Civil Procedure § 395(a) on the grounds that the injury took place in San Bernardino County; (2) under...
Jan 27, 2020
Defendant Stephen Douty’s Motion for Summary Judgement or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication Factual and Procedural Background Plaintiff Tim Devine (“Devine”) is an accomplished and well-respected music executive, entreprene...
...Unjust Enrichment (11) Violation of Business & Professions Code §§17200, et seq. On August 3, 2017, the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Hon. Ruth Ann Kwan) granted defendant Scayl’s motion to transfer venue to Santa Clara County. On November 27, 2017, Santa Clara County Superior Court assumed jurisdiction. On December 22, 2017, defendant Scayl filed notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy case closure. On Decem...
Jan 23, 2020
Presiding
...Gish Motion to Set Aside Void Judgment The court considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. Defendants Mia Mejia, Lon Hurwitz, and Donald Gaffney filed a notice of joinder in opposition to the motion. Background On May 22, 2015, plaintiff Ernest Calhoon (“Calhoon”) filed this action in Orange County Superior Court against defendants Mia Mejia, Michael Wagner, County of Orange, and Orange County ...
...California, Lon Hurwitz, Donald Gaffney, and Ryan Gish (erroneously named “Deputy Giss”) (“Gish”).[1] The causes of action are for “(1) Libel; (2) Libel; (3) Intrusion; (4) Intentional Infliction of Emotional [sic]; (5) Assault and Battery and False Imprisonment; (6) Violation of Civil Rights.” In the SAC, Calhoon alleges the following: - Calhoon attempted to file documents “on demand” for a client of h...
Jan 21, 2020
...moving counsel is unable to contact the other parties prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person or by telephone. The motion of Defendant Steven Otero ("Defendant") to transfer this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara is DENIED. Defendant's request for judicial notice is GRANTED. Defendant moves to transfer venue to Santa Clara County on grounds...
...promote the ends of justice. Finally, Plaintiff objects to the motion as prematurely filed before Defendant has answered. Transfer Based on Improper Venue A motion to transfer venue on grounds of improper venue may expressly be filed before the answer. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 396b). Indeed, if a party unreasonably delays in seeking to transfer venue until after an answer has been filed, the party may be found ...
Jan 17, 2020
...9, 2020, Defendants filed reply papers in support of the pending matters. Discussion I. Motion to Change Venue Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396b, subdivision (a), Defendants move to transfer the case to San Francisco County Superior Court. A. Request for Judicial Notice In connection with their moving papers, Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of the following items under ...
...Standard “The term ‘venue’ denotes the particular county within the state where a case is to be heard.” (K.R.L. Partnership v. Super. Ct. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 490, 496 (K.R.L.).) The instant motion to change venue is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396b, which authorizes a motion to transfer an action to a proper court when the action was commenced in the wrong venue. (See Cholakian & Associ...
Jan 16, 2020
Defendant Sun49er Village RV, LLC's ("Defendant") motion to transfer venue to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Amador is GRANTED. Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted. The Court will not rule on Plaintiffs James Adams' and Madaline Ada...
...("Plaintiffs") objection to evidence as the Court finds the evidence to which an objection was made was not material to the Court's decision. Defendant Sun49er Village RV, LLC's ("Defendant") motion to transfer venue to the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of Amador is GRANTED. Defendant's request for judicial notice is granted. Plaintiffs James Adams and Madaline Adams ("Plaintiffs") shall pay ...
Jan 14, 2020
19STCV03531 ABDUL POPL vs NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED IN PART. Sanctions in the amount of $1,393 are imposed jointly and severally against defendant and its counsel, due within 15 days. Moving party to give notice. Plaintiffs satisfied the s...
...purpose, considering Defendant’s motion for reconsideration is based solely on the fact that other trial courts decided a similar motion to transfer venue in equivalent cases it differently. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration was based on a “split in the Los Angeles Superior Court.” (Thurston Decl. filed in support of Defendant’s motion for reconsideration ¶ 6.) This was based on three specific decision...
Jan 14, 2020
