MAVEN MED, INC. VS TEXAS MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******0022 Hearing Date: October 31, 2022 Dept: 30

Dept. 30

Calendar No.

Maven Med, Inc. vs. Texas Medical Technology, et. al., Case No. *******0022

Tentative Ruling re: Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue

Defendants Texas Medical Technology (a Texas LLC), Texas Medical Technology (a California business entity), Texas Medical, Omri Shafran, and Revital Mos (collectively, Defendants) move to transfer venue to Texas. The motion is denied.

On timely motion, the court must order a transfer of venue “when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.” (Code Civ. Proc., 396b, 397(a).) A motion to transfer venue on grounds the designated court is not proper must be filed and served before or at the time of filing an answer, demurer, or motion to strike. (Code Civ. Proc., 396b.) “Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made.” (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482; Haurat v. Superior Court for Los Angeles County (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 330, 337 [“Venue is determined on the basis of the complaint as it stands at the time the motion to change is made, and the plaintiff is not permitted to make a subsequent election of theories by proposed amendments thereto”].)

The general venue rule is that “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).) Additionally, “when a plaintiff brings an action against several defendants, both individual and corporate, in a county in which none of the defendants reside, an individual defendant has the right to change venue to the county of his or her residence.” (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 837.) “If none of the defendants reside in the state or if they reside in the state and the county where they reside is unknown to the plaintiff, the action may be tried in the superior court in any county that the plaintiff may designate in his or her complaint, and, if the defendant is about to depart from the state, the action may be tried in the superior court in any county where either of the parties reside or service is made.” (Code Civ. Proc. 395, subd. (a).)

As an initial matter, Defendants’ notice of motion is deficient: “The notice of motion should specify the county or judicial district to which the transfer is sought, and a notice of motion to change the venue to one county will not support a motion for change to a different county.” (61 Cal. Jur. 3d Venue 88 [citing Heidel v. California Transit Co. (1928) 204 Cal. 21].) Defendants’ Notice only states that transfer is being sought to “Texas.”

In addition to the deficient notice, Defendants’ motion to transfer venue to Texas must be denied because a motion to transfer venue operates to transfer an action to a different county within California, not out of state. Under Code Civ. Proc. 395, subd. (a), a proper court is generally “the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside” (emphasis added). “The term ‘venue’ denotes the particular county within the state where a case is to be heard.” (California State Parks Foundation v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 826, 833.) This Court lacks authority under the venue statutes (Code Civ. Proc. 392, et seq.) to transfer venue to an unspecified court in Texas.

Defendants’ request to have this action heard in a forum outside California must be made pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. 410.30, supported by a showing that dismissal in favor of Texas would be “in the interest of substantial justice”: “When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.” (Code Civ. Proc. 410.30, subd. (a).)