SAMUEL GASPAR VS PATRICIAN ANN RUSSELL

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: MC025921    Hearing Date: November 21, 2019    Dept: 1

#2 – Samuel Gaspar v. Patricia Ann Russell (MC025921) 

On December 1, 2015, Samuel Gaspar filed a complaint against Patricia Ann Russell in MC025921 Gaspar v. Russell. The First Amended Complaint, filed on January 21, 2016, asserts claims for motor vehicle and general negligence. The FAC alleges Russell caused her vehicle to collide with pedestrian Gaspar at the intersection of Roscoe Blvd. and Sepulveda Blvd. in Panorama City. The case is currently pending in Department A15 of the Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse in the North District of the Los Angeles Superior Court. 

On October 2, 2019, the court held a Final Status Conference during which Plaintiff requested the case be transferred to the Central District based upon the location of both the accident and the witnesses. The court instructed Plaintiff to file a motion to transfer in Department 1 pursuant to Local Rule 2.3. After nearly four years of litigation in the Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Transfer to Central District on October 24, 2019 with the hearing set in Department 1. The motion is unopposed.

LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) authorizes Department 1 to transfer civil cases from one judicial district to another, including when the case was filed in an improper district, or for the convenience of witnesses or to promote the ends of justice. Whether to transfer an action between districts is entirely discretionary. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).)

Plaintiff argues the case was filed in the wrong district, noting “it remains unclear how the case wound up in Lancaster” because the declaration in the civil case cover sheet indicated Stanley Mosk was the proper courthouse. (Mo. at 4.) Pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A), a personal injury complaint “must be filed the Central District at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, or in the North District at the Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse. The filing court locator on the Los Angeles Superior Court website (www.lacourt.org) should be used to determine the appropriate filing location.”

Plaintiff’s careless errors, which are in evident in the present motion, resulted in this action being filed in the North District. While the declaration of Jeff Bonelli states “[a]ttached hereto as EXHIBIT 1 is a trued [sic] and correct copy of the Complaint filed in this matter” including the Statement of Location, (Bonelli Decl. ¶ 1), no exhibit was attached to the declaration filed with the court. Nevertheless, the court takes judicial notice of the complaint and the civil case cover sheet filed on December 1, 2015. (Evid. Code § 452(d).) The court will also take judicial notice of the zip codes for Panorama City and Lancaster in California. (Evid. Code § 451(f).)

Plaintiff notes the Declaration of Assignment on the civil case cover sheet identifies the proper courthouse assignment as the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in the Central District. (Mo. at 4; Bonelli Decl ¶ 1.) However, Plaintiff used the incorrect zip code in the Statement of Location on the civil case cover sheet. In the initial complaint, Plaintiff alleged the accident occurred at “Roscoe Blvd., ands [sic] Sebulveda Blvd., [sic] Panorama City, CA 91402,” which is the correct zip code for Panorama City. However, on the civil case cover sheet, Plaintiff incorrectly identified the zip code for Panorama City as 93535, which is a zip code in Lancaster. Using the zip code provided by Plaintiff on the civil case coversheet, the proper filing location pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) was the North District.

Plaintiff also argues the convenience of witnesses would be promoted by the transfer. Because the same language appears in both LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) and CCP § 397(c) regarding “convenience of witnesses” or the ends of justice, the court finds that a defendant moving for a venue change pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) should bear the burden of proof if it seeks a district transfer out of a presumptively correct forum, just as in motions for change of proper venue pursuant to CCP § 397(c). (See Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 396, 401.) That burden of proof should, moreover, call for affidavits that contain more than generalities and conclusions. (See Hamilton v Superior Court (1974) 37 Cal. App. 3d 418, 424.) Such affidavits or declarations, like those for change of venue under CCP § 397(c), ought to show the name of each witness, the expected testimony of each witness, and facts showing why the attendance of said witnesses at trial would be inconvenient or why the ends of justice would be served by a transfer. (See Stute v. Burinda (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 11, 17.) Convenience to non-party witnesses alone should be the key to the success of the motion, and not the convenience of parties or employees of parties. (Ibid.) “The affidavits in support of the motion for change of venue on this ground must set forth the names of the witnesses, the nature of the testimony expected from each, and the reasons why the attendance of each would be inconvenient.” (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607.) The declaration of Jeff Bonelli fails to meet this burden as it merely identifies the names of medical professionals who treated the plaintiff and the city where they are “located.” (Bonelli Decl. ¶¶ 2-13.) Bonelli’s declaration does not include any specific information regarding their testimony or facts demonstrating continued litigation in the North District would be unreasonably inconvenient to the non-party witnesses.

Finally, the court finds Plaintiff’s motion to be untimely. Plaintiff unreasonably delayed until the final status conference to file the motion to transfer. (Willingham v. Pecora (1941) 44 Cal.App.2d 289, 295 (“It is the universal rule in this state that motions of this character must be made within a reasonable time.”); Thompson v. Superior Court (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 300, 306.)

For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer to Central District is DENIED in its entirety.

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.