Preview
\J
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
2
SHAWN A.
Email:
TOLIVER, SB# 148349
Shawn.Toliver®1ewisbrisboiscom
JULIE M. AZEVEDO, SB# 151618
F I L
SAN MATEO COUNTY
E D
3 Email: Julie.Azevedo@Iewisbrisboiscom
COLIN E. HOWARD, SB# 308924 M AY 2 5 2018
4 Email: Colin.Howard@lewisbrisbois.com
333 Bush Street, Suite 1100
5 San Francisco, California 94104-2872
Telephone: 415.362.2580
6 Facsimile: 415.434.0882
7 Attorneys for Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and
MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as
8 MARGOT HYUN)
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
11 BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through CASE NO. 18CIV01696
her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA
12 LOPEZ GOMEZ, DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND
MARGARET HYUN’S MEMORANDUM
13 Plaintiff, OF POTNTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FORTENSFER»
14 vs. OF VENUE W'
—fl1695
3mg”—
15 PAUL BONIFACIO, MARGOT HYUN, and Date: July 2, 2018 Memmndum 0' Poms and Aulhorifies in SUN
DOES ONE thorough ONE-HUNDRED: Time: 9:00 am. “72585
16 inclusive, ‘Dept.: Law&Motion
O 17 Defendants.
Judge: ”H“
--~ --
“ll"“llm
--
“M
:0
”“— 18
Action Filed: APtil 6, 201 8
- . ~— -
Trial Date: None Set
(I)
-v~-“ I.
’
19 INTRODUCTION
>
45—“—
I.“-
20
21
This
Olympic Valley,
is a personal injury
Placer County,
action arising
California.
out
Venue
of a fire
should
that occurred at a residence
be transferred to Placer County
located in
because
22 the vast majority of the material witnesses live there, and because defendants PAUL BONIFACIO
23 and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as MARGOT HYUN) (“Defendants”) have reason to
24 believe that an impartial trial cannot be held in San Mateo County. Accordingly, Defendants file
25 this motion to transfer the case to Placer County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section
26 397(b) and (c).
27 ///
LEWiS
28 ///
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4814-8166-0773}
1
figflfl‘fl'fl
A
DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF V ENUE.
IT. PROCEDURAL POSTURE
On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through her Guardian ad
Litem, ELBA KARINA LOPEZ GOMEZ, filed a Complaint for damages and demand for jury
trial in San Mateo County Superior Court, case number 18CIV01696, naming Paul Bonifacio,
Margot
\OmflmUI-AUJNH
Hyun, and Does One through One—Hundred, inclusive as defendants. (Exhibit 1
(“Complaint”) to the accompanying Declaration of Julie M. Azevedo (“Azevedo Decl.”).)
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
This lawsuit arises out of an alleged incident which occurred in Placer County—precisely,
a residence located at 1509 Christy Lane, Olympic Valley, California. (Complaint, 115).
Plaintiff alleges that on March 17, 2018, she was lawfully present at the aforementioned
Christy Lane property when an explosion and ensuing fire occurred, resulting in third-degree
burns over the majority her body. (Complaint, 1] 6.) Plaintiff alleges that the cause of the fire and
explosion was leaking propane gas that had collected in the residence and ignited. (Complaint, fl
7.) She alleges that the propane was stored at or supplied to the residence in an outdoor tank.
(Complaint, 1] 7.)
Plaintiff‘s Complaint includes eight causes of action, the first four of which assert claims
for product liability against Doe Defendants Ten through Twenty-Nine. Only the sixth
(negligence) and seventh (premises liability-negligence) causes of action are asserted against the
named Defendants.
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
wflmUIA-MNHG‘OOOQQUIJBWNHG
Plaintiff contends that Does 10 through 29 installed, designed, manufactured, marketed,
, distributed, sold, installed, maintained, inspected, repaired, and serviced an appliance which
Plaintiff alleges was the source of the ignition and the explosion. The eighth cause of action for
strict liability for ultra hazardous activity is asserted against Defendants Does One through
Twenty—Nine who have yet to be named or identified. Such defendants include those engaged in
the “ultra hazardous activity with respect to providing, distributing, storing, and using highly
flammable propane gas in residences.” (Complaint, 1t 64.)
In the Declaration Plaintiff’s counsel attached to the Application and Order for
LEWIS
Appointment of a Guardian ad litem, counsel indicates that Plaintiff was taken by medical
BRISBOlS
BISGAARD 48l4-8166-0773J
2
awmw Al MW
AUORN‘EY:
DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE
helicopter to Renown Health in Reno and then to U.C. Davis’ Burn Center in Sacramento,
N California, where she has undergone various surgeries and, at the time the filing of Complaint,
remained in a medically induced coma. (Azevedo Decl., Exhibit 2.)
A!»
The majority of material witnesses who will testify at trial reside in Placer County, or north
U!
of Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1] 5.) The named Defendants allegedly owned the Christy Lane
property. (Azevedo Decl. 1] 6.) The witnesses who participated in the sale of the property to
Defendants, and the witnesses who conducted an inspection of the property before the sale, all
reside
\OOOQQ
in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1] 7.) The witnesses who Defendants hired to clean,
maintain, and care for the property all reside in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 8.) Defendants
1]
10 anticipate that such individuals may have material information regarding Plaintiff’s claims.
11 The fire occurred in a residential neighborhood, and upon information and belief, residents
12 of several households witnessed the fire and its immediate aftermath. (Azevedo Decl. 1]9.) Upon
13 information and belief, the paramedics and first responders who responded to the fire and treated
14 Plaintiff at the scene reside in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1]10.) They include members and
15 employees of the Squaw Valley Fire Department, North Tahoe Fire Protection District, the Placer
16 County Sheriff’s Department, all of which are based in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 10,
1]
17 Exhibit 3.) Members of the California Highway Patrol and the Truckee Fire Department, both of
18 which have bases north of Placer County, also assisted at the scene. (Azevedo Decl. 12, Exhibit
1]
19 4.) After the fire, Plaintiff was transported between hospitals via helicopter operated by Care
20 Flight, which flew from its base in Truckee, California, which is located north of Placer County.
21 (Azevedo Decl. 1]15.) Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and the person she was with when
22 the fire occurred reside in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1] l4.) Defendants anticipate that the
23 witnesses who will have material information pertaining to Plaintiff’s claims for product liability
24 and ultra-hazardous activities—Le. witnesses who installed the propane tank, serviced and
25 maintained the propane tank, and delivered the gas—reside in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1]
26 16.)
27 The only presently known witnesses who do not reside in Placer County are Defendants,
28 who reside in San Mateo County.
LEWiS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4814-8166-0771]
3
& SMITH up DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
MW
ATTORNEYS A?
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE
IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. The Court Has Authority to Transfer Venue From One Proper Venue to
Another In Order to Promote the Convenience of Witnesses and the Ends of
Justice
The proper venue for an action for injury to a person or personal property from a wrongful
\wlaUIALMNb—s
act or negligence is either the county where the injury occurs, or in which the defendants, or some
of them, reside at the commencement of the action. (Code Civ. Proc. §395(a).) As such, San
Mateo County, where both Defendants reside, and Placer County, where the accident occurred, are
both proper venues for this lawsuit.
Where appropriate, the Court has discretion to transfer venue. Code of Civil Procedure
section 397 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases:
(b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had
girilllhen the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be
promoted by the change.
(Code Civ. Proc. § 397.)
In Richfield Hotel Management, Inc. v.Superior Court, a court of appeal ruled that the trial
court had abused its discretion in not granting defendant’s motion (pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 397(0)) to transfer venue to promote the convenience
NNNNNNNNNHHHI—IHHHHr—«H
of witnesses and the ends
of justice. (Richfield Hotel Illanagement,
maamamNr—Ieweoqmmhmtume
Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 222.) In
that case, several plaintiffs filed suit for damages in San Mateo County based on allegations that
they had been harassed by defendant at a hotel in Tulare County. (Id. at 224.) The defendant
resided in San Mateo County, so pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a), venue was
proper there. However, the defendant moved to transfer venue to Tulare County, based on the
convenience of witnesses. (Id) The defendant introduced evidence that all of the witnesses who
had personal knowledge of the incidents giving rise to the complaint, and the medical
professionals who treated the plaintiffs afterwards, all resided in Tulare County. The defendant
argued that the witnesses would be inconvenienced by having to miss work and travel to San
Mateo County for trial. The trial court denied the motion.
LEWIS
BRlSBOlS
BISGAARD 4814-8166-0773]
4
swim?
ATIOR’E‘IS Al [AW
DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFAClO AND MARGARET HYUNlS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORlTlES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE
On appeal, the court of appeal considered the evidence that the defendant had provided,
and explained as follows:
JAWN
Convenience of witnesses is shown by the fact that the residence of all the
witnesses is in the county to which the transfer of the cause is requested.
[Citation] A conclusion that the ends of justice are promoted can be drawn from
the fact that by moving the trial closer to the residence of the witnesses, delay and
expense in court proceedings are avoided and savings in the witnesses‘ time and
expenses are effected. [Citation] Where there is a showing that the convenience
of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change and there is
\DOQQQUI
absolutely no showing Whatever to the contrary, a denial of the motion to change
venue is an abuse of discretion, there being no conflict of evidence to sustain the
decision of the trial court. [Citations]
10 (Id. at 227. (Alterations in original.) (Quoting Pearson v. Superior Court (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d
11 69, 77-78.» Based on those factors, the court of appeals ruled that the trial court had abused its
12 discretion in refusing to transfer venue to Tulare County. The court explained that the evidence
13 was sufficient to show that the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice would be
14 promoted by the transfer.
15 Similarly here, it is believed that the majority of the witnesses reside in Placer County,
16 where the accident occurred.
17 B. flere ls Reason to Believe that an Impartial Trial Cannot Be Held In
San Mateo County
18
19 San Mateo County was the venue for a number of civil and criminal lawsuits related to the
20 San Bruno explosion that occurred in 2010. Those lawsuits drew national attention. Eight people
21 died in the massive explosion, and an entire residential area was destroyed, The lengthy criminal
22 jury trial against utility company PG&E was concluded in late 2016. Resolution of the many civil
23 trials continued through mid—2017.
24 There are some significant similarities between the San Bruno explosion and the explosion
25 that forms the basis of this lawsuit. Both were allegedly caused by gas, resulted in massive
26 personal injuries, and involved residential properties. As in the San Bruno case, Plaintiff herein
27 will allege that the explosion was caused by negligence pertaining to the delivery, storage and use
LEWIS of the gas.
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 48]4-8]66-0773.l
5
aswm up DEF ENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUNis MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
[AW
ATTORNEYS A1
AUTHORITIES lN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE
Based on these facts, it isreasonable to expect based on the 2010 San Bruno disaster and
the long, protracted criminal and civil litigation that occurred in San Mateo County afterwards,
that an impartial jury will be difficult to obtain in San Mateo County. Any juror who resides in
that county will be hyper-sensitive to
QUIADJN
any claims based on a residential explosion and fire that was
'
allegedly caused by gas. For these reasons, transfer under Code of Civil Procedure section 397
section 397(b) is appropriate.
~J C. The Convenience of Witnesses and the Ends offinstice Would Be
Promoted by the Transfer to Placer County Superior Court
This case is similar to Richfield Hotel Management, where the witnesses to the accident
10 reside hundreds of miles away from San Mateo County. (See Richfield Hotel Management, supra,
11 22 Cal. App. 4th 222, 227 (“Convenience of witnesses is shown fact
by the that the residence of
12 all the witnesses is in the county to which the transfer of the is
cause requested.”)) The vast
13 majority of the witnesses who will testify at the trial of this matter reside in Placer County or north
14 of Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1] 5.) They will be inconvenienced if trial is conducted in San
15 Mateo County because travelling to court to testify will require them to drive at least 460 miles
16 round trip, to incur expenses for lodging and meals, and to likely miss time from work. The drive
17 from Olympic Valley, where the accident occurred, to San Mateo County is at least 230 miles.
18 (Azevedo Decl. 11 18.)
19 The transfer will further the ends of justice well. As the court in
as Richfield Hotel
20 Management stated, “A conclusion that the ends of justice are promoted can be drawn from the
21 fact that by moving the trial closer to the residence of the witnesses, delay and expense in court
22 proceedings are avoided and savings in the witnesses’ time and expenses effected.”
are (See
23 Richfield Hotel Management, supra, 22 Cal. 'App. 4th 222, 227.) Moreover, all of the physical
24 evidence pertaining to the accident is located in Placer County as well. (Azevedo Decl. 1! 17.) The
25 parties will need to expend substantial resources if they are forced to transport that material to San
26 Mateo County for the jury’s inspection during trial.
27 ///
LEWIS
28 / //
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 48l4—8166-0773. l
6
8(SVIHHUP DEF ENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’ S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
MORNEYS Al LAW
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE
1 V. CONCLUSION
2 For these reasons, Defendants request that the Court transfer this case to Placer County
3 Superior Court. There is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be held in San Mateo
4 County, and the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the
1
5 transfer.
6 Respectfully submitted,
7
8 DATED: May 24, 2018
9
10
\ .j
,
.
11 Sha Idliver
x
Julie 1\ . evedo
12 Colin E. Howard
Attorneys for Defendants Defendants PAUL
13
BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN
14 (erroneously sued as MARGOT HYUN)
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4814-8166-0773]
7
gmg »
DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MEMORANDUM or POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES TN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE
PROOF OF SERVICE
Briceida Lopez v. Paul Baug'facia, et (11.
San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 18CIV 01696
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My
business address is 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104—2872.
\OOOflmUl-lkmNI-l
On May 25, 2018, I served the following document:
DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE
I served the document on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax
numbers and email addresses, if applicable):
O
1—-
Matthew D. Davis, Esq.
Spencer J. Pahlke, Esq.
h-l
H Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger
650 California Street, 26““ Floor
N
1-—
San Francisco, CA 94108—2615
Tel: (415) 981-7210
H DJ Fax: (415) 391-6965
Email: mdavisfilwalkuplawofficecom
43'
H spahlke@walkuplawoffice.com
Attornevs for Plaintiff BRICEIDA LOPEZ
U!
r—A
O“.
[—4
The document was served by the following means:
H \l El (BY US. MAIL) I enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the
persons at the addresses listed above and placed the envelope or package for collection and
00
)— mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice
for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, on the same day
\O
I—I
that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, itis deposited in the ordinary course of
business with the US. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope or package with the postage fully
NC prepaid.
NH I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
NN
Executed on May 25, 2018, at San Francisco, California.
N LN
N 4:-
N U!
N 0\
N \l
N 00
LEWIS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD 4814-8166-0773]
ELSMlll-lLlP
8
AUDRNEVS AI [AW PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
\J 1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 2 SHAWN A. Email: TOLIVER, SB# 148349 Shawn.Toliver®1ewisbrisboiscom JULIE M. AZEVEDO, SB# 151618 F I L SAN MATEO COUNTY E D 3 Email: Julie.Azevedo@Iewisbrisboiscom COLIN E. HOWARD, SB# 308924 M AY 2 5 2018 4 Email: Colin.Howard@lewisbrisbois.com 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100 5 San Francisco, California 94104-2872 Telephone: 415.362.2580 6 Facsimile: 415.434.0882 7 Attorneys for Defendants PAUL BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as 8 MARGOT HYUN) 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 11 BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through CASE NO. 18CIV01696 her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA 12 LOPEZ GOMEZ, DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MEMORANDUM 13 Plaintiff, OF POTNTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FORTENSFER» 14 vs. OF VENUE W' —fl1695 3mg”— 15 PAUL BONIFACIO, MARGOT HYUN, and Date: July 2, 2018 Memmndum 0' Poms and Aulhorifies in SUN DOES ONE thorough ONE-HUNDRED: Time: 9:00 am. “72585 16 inclusive, ‘Dept.: Law&Motion O 17 Defendants. Judge: ”H“ --~ -- “ll"“llm -- “M :0 ”“— 18 Action Filed: APtil 6, 201 8 - . ~— - Trial Date: None Set (I) -v~-“ I. ’ 19 INTRODUCTION > 45—“— I.“- 20 21 This Olympic Valley, is a personal injury Placer County, action arising California. out Venue of a fire should that occurred at a residence be transferred to Placer County located in because 22 the vast majority of the material witnesses live there, and because defendants PAUL BONIFACIO 23 and MARGARET HYUN (erroneously sued as MARGOT HYUN) (“Defendants”) have reason to 24 believe that an impartial trial cannot be held in San Mateo County. Accordingly, Defendants file 25 this motion to transfer the case to Placer County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 26 397(b) and (c). 27 /// LEWiS 28 /// BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4814-8166-0773} 1 figflfl‘fl'fl A DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF V ENUE. IT. PROCEDURAL POSTURE On April 6, 2018, Plaintiff BRICEIDA LOPEZ, an adult by and through her Guardian ad Litem, ELBA KARINA LOPEZ GOMEZ, filed a Complaint for damages and demand for jury trial in San Mateo County Superior Court, case number 18CIV01696, naming Paul Bonifacio, Margot \OmflmUI-AUJNH Hyun, and Does One through One—Hundred, inclusive as defendants. (Exhibit 1 (“Complaint”) to the accompanying Declaration of Julie M. Azevedo (“Azevedo Decl.”).) III. STATEMENT OF FACTS This lawsuit arises out of an alleged incident which occurred in Placer County—precisely, a residence located at 1509 Christy Lane, Olympic Valley, California. (Complaint, 115). Plaintiff alleges that on March 17, 2018, she was lawfully present at the aforementioned Christy Lane property when an explosion and ensuing fire occurred, resulting in third-degree burns over the majority her body. (Complaint, 1] 6.) Plaintiff alleges that the cause of the fire and explosion was leaking propane gas that had collected in the residence and ignited. (Complaint, fl 7.) She alleges that the propane was stored at or supplied to the residence in an outdoor tank. (Complaint, 1] 7.) Plaintiff‘s Complaint includes eight causes of action, the first four of which assert claims for product liability against Doe Defendants Ten through Twenty-Nine. Only the sixth (negligence) and seventh (premises liability-negligence) causes of action are asserted against the named Defendants. NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH wflmUIA-MNHG‘OOOQQUIJBWNHG Plaintiff contends that Does 10 through 29 installed, designed, manufactured, marketed, , distributed, sold, installed, maintained, inspected, repaired, and serviced an appliance which Plaintiff alleges was the source of the ignition and the explosion. The eighth cause of action for strict liability for ultra hazardous activity is asserted against Defendants Does One through Twenty—Nine who have yet to be named or identified. Such defendants include those engaged in the “ultra hazardous activity with respect to providing, distributing, storing, and using highly flammable propane gas in residences.” (Complaint, 1t 64.) In the Declaration Plaintiff’s counsel attached to the Application and Order for LEWIS Appointment of a Guardian ad litem, counsel indicates that Plaintiff was taken by medical BRISBOlS BISGAARD 48l4-8166-0773J 2 awmw Al MW AUORN‘EY: DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE helicopter to Renown Health in Reno and then to U.C. Davis’ Burn Center in Sacramento, N California, where she has undergone various surgeries and, at the time the filing of Complaint, remained in a medically induced coma. (Azevedo Decl., Exhibit 2.) A!» The majority of material witnesses who will testify at trial reside in Placer County, or north U! of Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1] 5.) The named Defendants allegedly owned the Christy Lane property. (Azevedo Decl. 1] 6.) The witnesses who participated in the sale of the property to Defendants, and the witnesses who conducted an inspection of the property before the sale, all reside \OOOQQ in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1] 7.) The witnesses who Defendants hired to clean, maintain, and care for the property all reside in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 8.) Defendants 1] 10 anticipate that such individuals may have material information regarding Plaintiff’s claims. 11 The fire occurred in a residential neighborhood, and upon information and belief, residents 12 of several households witnessed the fire and its immediate aftermath. (Azevedo Decl. 1]9.) Upon 13 information and belief, the paramedics and first responders who responded to the fire and treated 14 Plaintiff at the scene reside in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1]10.) They include members and 15 employees of the Squaw Valley Fire Department, North Tahoe Fire Protection District, the Placer 16 County Sheriff’s Department, all of which are based in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 10, 1] 17 Exhibit 3.) Members of the California Highway Patrol and the Truckee Fire Department, both of 18 which have bases north of Placer County, also assisted at the scene. (Azevedo Decl. 12, Exhibit 1] 19 4.) After the fire, Plaintiff was transported between hospitals via helicopter operated by Care 20 Flight, which flew from its base in Truckee, California, which is located north of Placer County. 21 (Azevedo Decl. 1]15.) Upon information and belief, Plaintiff and the person she was with when 22 the fire occurred reside in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1] l4.) Defendants anticipate that the 23 witnesses who will have material information pertaining to Plaintiff’s claims for product liability 24 and ultra-hazardous activities—Le. witnesses who installed the propane tank, serviced and 25 maintained the propane tank, and delivered the gas—reside in Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1] 26 16.) 27 The only presently known witnesses who do not reside in Placer County are Defendants, 28 who reside in San Mateo County. LEWiS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4814-8166-0771] 3 & SMITH up DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND MW ATTORNEYS A? AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. The Court Has Authority to Transfer Venue From One Proper Venue to Another In Order to Promote the Convenience of Witnesses and the Ends of Justice The proper venue for an action for injury to a person or personal property from a wrongful \wlaUIALMNb—s act or negligence is either the county where the injury occurs, or in which the defendants, or some of them, reside at the commencement of the action. (Code Civ. Proc. §395(a).) As such, San Mateo County, where both Defendants reside, and Placer County, where the accident occurred, are both proper venues for this lawsuit. Where appropriate, the Court has discretion to transfer venue. Code of Civil Procedure section 397 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: (b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had girilllhen the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. (Code Civ. Proc. § 397.) In Richfield Hotel Management, Inc. v.Superior Court, a court of appeal ruled that the trial court had abused its discretion in not granting defendant’s motion (pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397(0)) to transfer venue to promote the convenience NNNNNNNNNHHHI—IHHHHr—«H of witnesses and the ends of justice. (Richfield Hotel Illanagement, maamamNr—Ieweoqmmhmtume Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 222.) In that case, several plaintiffs filed suit for damages in San Mateo County based on allegations that they had been harassed by defendant at a hotel in Tulare County. (Id. at 224.) The defendant resided in San Mateo County, so pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a), venue was proper there. However, the defendant moved to transfer venue to Tulare County, based on the convenience of witnesses. (Id) The defendant introduced evidence that all of the witnesses who had personal knowledge of the incidents giving rise to the complaint, and the medical professionals who treated the plaintiffs afterwards, all resided in Tulare County. The defendant argued that the witnesses would be inconvenienced by having to miss work and travel to San Mateo County for trial. The trial court denied the motion. LEWIS BRlSBOlS BISGAARD 4814-8166-0773] 4 swim? ATIOR’E‘IS Al [AW DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFAClO AND MARGARET HYUNlS MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORlTlES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE On appeal, the court of appeal considered the evidence that the defendant had provided, and explained as follows: JAWN Convenience of witnesses is shown by the fact that the residence of all the witnesses is in the county to which the transfer of the cause is requested. [Citation] A conclusion that the ends of justice are promoted can be drawn from the fact that by moving the trial closer to the residence of the witnesses, delay and expense in court proceedings are avoided and savings in the witnesses‘ time and expenses are effected. [Citation] Where there is a showing that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted by the change and there is \DOQQQUI absolutely no showing Whatever to the contrary, a denial of the motion to change venue is an abuse of discretion, there being no conflict of evidence to sustain the decision of the trial court. [Citations] 10 (Id. at 227. (Alterations in original.) (Quoting Pearson v. Superior Court (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 11 69, 77-78.» Based on those factors, the court of appeals ruled that the trial court had abused its 12 discretion in refusing to transfer venue to Tulare County. The court explained that the evidence 13 was sufficient to show that the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice would be 14 promoted by the transfer. 15 Similarly here, it is believed that the majority of the witnesses reside in Placer County, 16 where the accident occurred. 17 B. flere ls Reason to Believe that an Impartial Trial Cannot Be Held In San Mateo County 18 19 San Mateo County was the venue for a number of civil and criminal lawsuits related to the 20 San Bruno explosion that occurred in 2010. Those lawsuits drew national attention. Eight people 21 died in the massive explosion, and an entire residential area was destroyed, The lengthy criminal 22 jury trial against utility company PG&E was concluded in late 2016. Resolution of the many civil 23 trials continued through mid—2017. 24 There are some significant similarities between the San Bruno explosion and the explosion 25 that forms the basis of this lawsuit. Both were allegedly caused by gas, resulted in massive 26 personal injuries, and involved residential properties. As in the San Bruno case, Plaintiff herein 27 will allege that the explosion was caused by negligence pertaining to the delivery, storage and use LEWIS of the gas. BRISBOIS BISGAARD 48]4-8]66-0773.l 5 aswm up DEF ENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUNis MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND [AW ATTORNEYS A1 AUTHORITIES lN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE Based on these facts, it isreasonable to expect based on the 2010 San Bruno disaster and the long, protracted criminal and civil litigation that occurred in San Mateo County afterwards, that an impartial jury will be difficult to obtain in San Mateo County. Any juror who resides in that county will be hyper-sensitive to QUIADJN any claims based on a residential explosion and fire that was ' allegedly caused by gas. For these reasons, transfer under Code of Civil Procedure section 397 section 397(b) is appropriate. ~J C. The Convenience of Witnesses and the Ends offinstice Would Be Promoted by the Transfer to Placer County Superior Court This case is similar to Richfield Hotel Management, where the witnesses to the accident 10 reside hundreds of miles away from San Mateo County. (See Richfield Hotel Management, supra, 11 22 Cal. App. 4th 222, 227 (“Convenience of witnesses is shown fact by the that the residence of 12 all the witnesses is in the county to which the transfer of the is cause requested.”)) The vast 13 majority of the witnesses who will testify at the trial of this matter reside in Placer County or north 14 of Placer County. (Azevedo Decl. 1] 5.) They will be inconvenienced if trial is conducted in San 15 Mateo County because travelling to court to testify will require them to drive at least 460 miles 16 round trip, to incur expenses for lodging and meals, and to likely miss time from work. The drive 17 from Olympic Valley, where the accident occurred, to San Mateo County is at least 230 miles. 18 (Azevedo Decl. 11 18.) 19 The transfer will further the ends of justice well. As the court in as Richfield Hotel 20 Management stated, “A conclusion that the ends of justice are promoted can be drawn from the 21 fact that by moving the trial closer to the residence of the witnesses, delay and expense in court 22 proceedings are avoided and savings in the witnesses’ time and expenses effected.” are (See 23 Richfield Hotel Management, supra, 22 Cal. 'App. 4th 222, 227.) Moreover, all of the physical 24 evidence pertaining to the accident is located in Placer County as well. (Azevedo Decl. 1! 17.) The 25 parties will need to expend substantial resources if they are forced to transport that material to San 26 Mateo County for the jury’s inspection during trial. 27 /// LEWIS 28 / // BRISBOIS BISGAARD 48l4—8166-0773. l 6 8(SVIHHUP DEF ENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’ S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND MORNEYS Al LAW AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE 1 V. CONCLUSION 2 For these reasons, Defendants request that the Court transfer this case to Placer County 3 Superior Court. There is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be held in San Mateo 4 County, and the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the 1 5 transfer. 6 Respectfully submitted, 7 8 DATED: May 24, 2018 9 10 \ .j , . 11 Sha Idliver x Julie 1\ . evedo 12 Colin E. Howard Attorneys for Defendants Defendants PAUL 13 BONIFACIO and MARGARET HYUN 14 (erroneously sued as MARGOT HYUN) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4814-8166-0773] 7 gmg » DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MEMORANDUM or POINTS AND AUTHORITIES TN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE PROOF OF SERVICE Briceida Lopez v. Paul Baug'facia, et (11. San Mateo County Superior Court, Case No. 18CIV 01696 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to the action. My business address is 333 Bush Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104—2872. \OOOflmUl-lkmNI-l On May 25, 2018, I served the following document: DEFENDANTS PAUL BONIFACIO AND MARGARET HYUN’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE I served the document on the following persons at the following addresses (including fax numbers and email addresses, if applicable): O 1—- Matthew D. Davis, Esq. Spencer J. Pahlke, Esq. h-l H Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger 650 California Street, 26““ Floor N 1-— San Francisco, CA 94108—2615 Tel: (415) 981-7210 H DJ Fax: (415) 391-6965 Email: mdavisfilwalkuplawofficecom 43' H spahlke@walkuplawoffice.com Attornevs for Plaintiff BRICEIDA LOPEZ U! r—A O“. [—4 The document was served by the following means: H \l El (BY US. MAIL) I enclosed the document in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed above and placed the envelope or package for collection and 00 )— mailing, following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, on the same day \O I—I that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, itis deposited in the ordinary course of business with the US. Postal Service, in a sealed envelope or package with the postage fully NC prepaid. NH I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. NN Executed on May 25, 2018, at San Francisco, California. N LN N 4:- N U! N 0\ N \l N 00 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD 4814-8166-0773] ELSMlll-lLlP 8 AUDRNEVS AI [AW PROOF OF SERVICE