INHANCE DIGITAL CORPORATION VS JULANDER BROWN BOLLARD, LLP, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0863    Hearing Date: January 20, 2021    Dept: 52

DEFENDANTS JULANDER BROWN BOLLARD, LLP; DIRK JULANDER, ESQ.; TABOADA ROCHLIN GOVIER LLP; AND FRANK J. TABOADA, ESQ,’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT, COUNTY OF ORANGE

The court having read the papers and heard the arguments rules as follows:

Requests for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests judicial notice of:

1. The online court docket of Inhance Digital Corporation, v. Maziar Farzam, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 19STCV13924; and

2. The indictment filed on October 10, 2019 in United States of America v. Brandon Becker, U.S District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 1:19-cr00704-LAP as Document No. 7.

Both documents are court records subject to judicial notice. (Evid. Code, ; 452(d).) The requests are GRANTED.

Venue

CCP ; 397(a) provides that courts may transfer a case to another venue when the present venue is not proper. CCP ; 395(a) provides, “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.”

Gallin v. Superior Court

The plaintiff's theory of the action as set forth in the complaint determines the venue. Because the law favors the right of trial at the defendant's residence, the complaint will be strictly construed against a plaintiff seeking to lay the venue elsewhere. 

A “mixed action” is one where the plaintiff has alleged two or more causes of action, each of which is governed by a different venue statute. Or, two or more defendants are named who are subject to different venue standards. Where the defendant is entitled to a change of venue as to one cause of action, the entire action is transferred. 

(Citations omitted; see also 3 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Actions ; 885.)

Whether or not this Court is a proper court for the claims for legal malpractice, it is not a proper court for the third cause of action for conversion. “The general rule is that the residence of defendant is the proper place for trial, and this applies to personal torts not involving physical injury, including conversion.” (Haurat v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 330, 333.)

Plaintiff’s third cause of action alleges conversion against defendants Dirk Julander and Julander Brown & Bollard, LLP. Plaintiff alleges that Julander solicited Penn Arthur to wrongfully take $150,000 from plaintiff’s account, which Arthur then paid to Julander. (¶¶ 95-100.)

It is undisputed that defendants Julander Brown Bollard, LLP and Dirk Julander reside in Orange County. (Opposition, 8:13-15.) The proper court for the conversion claim against them is there. They are therefore entitled to a change of venue of the entire action to the Superior Court for the County of Orange. (Gallin, supra, 230 Cal.App.3d 541, 545.)

Transfer Fees

CCP ; 399(a) provides that, when a court orders transfer of a case because it was brought in an improper court, the plaintiff must pay the costs and fees of the transfer.

Based on the foregoing, the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs and fees of the transfer. This case will then be transferred to Orange County Superior Court in accordance with CCP ; 399.

[Moving party] is ordered to give notice.

If either party do not agree with courts tentative ruling, parties are they are ordered to appear by LACourtConnect at 8:30 a.m., in Department 52.