This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/13/2019 at 02:08:44 (UTC).

MORAYMA A RUIZ VS RIGOBERTO ROMO ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/26/2018 MORAYMA A RUIZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against RIGOBERTO ROMO. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is TERRY GREEN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5946

  • Filing Date:

    02/26/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

TERRY GREEN

 

Party Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff

RUIZ MORAYAMA A.

Defendants and Respondents

ROMO FAMILY TRUST UTD

ROMO RIGOBERTO

ROMO REBECA AS TRUSTEE OF THE ROMO

DOES 1 TO 100

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner and Plaintiff Attorney

CASTELBLANCO ERIC E. ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

THOROSIAN LIA

MANDELL BARBARA J. ESQ.

 

Court Documents

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

4/30/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/2/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

5/9/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

8/13/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

8/15/2018: PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF OPPOSITION AND OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Minute Order

8/16/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE REGARDING SELECETION OF A MEDIATOR OFF CALENDER

9/14/2018: NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE REGARDING SELECETION OF A MEDIATOR OFF CALENDER

Answer

11/2/2018: Answer

Order

11/27/2018: Order

Amended Complaint

1/9/2019: Amended Complaint

Minute Order

1/14/2019: Minute Order

Minute Order

3/14/2019: Minute Order

Certificate of Mailing for

3/14/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Minute Order

4/2/2019: Minute Order

Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

4/5/2019: Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

4/5/2019: Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

Minute Order

4/23/2019: Minute Order

SUMMONS

2/28/2018: SUMMONS

23 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/23/2019
  • at 08:45 AM in Department 14, Terry Green, Presiding; Status Conference (re Guardian Ad Litem) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference re Guardian Ad Litem)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (for Alicia); Filed by Morayama A. Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (for Valeria); Filed by Morayama A. Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (for Melanie); Filed by Morayama A. Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (for Morayma); Filed by Morayama A. Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • Application And Order For Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem (for Kimberly); Filed by Morayama A. Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • at 08:45 AM in Department 14, Terry Green, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/02/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Post-Mediation Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • at 08:45 AM in Department 14, Terry Green, Presiding; Post-Mediation Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
40 More Docket Entries
  • 04/30/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Morayama A. Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/30/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • NOTICE OF CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • Notice; Filed by Morayama A. Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Morayama A. Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/18/2018
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Morayama A. Ruiz (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/26/2018
  • HABITABILITY AND PREMISES LIABILITY COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC695946    Hearing Date: July 30, 2020    Dept: 1

Ruiz v. Romo, et al (BC695946) 

NOTE: IF ANY PARTY INTENDS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING RATHER THAN SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE PARTY MUST APPEAR REMOTELY BY LACourtConnect.

On February 26, 2018, Morayma A. Ruiz filed an unlimited civil complaint against Rigoberto Romo and Rebeca Romo, as Trustees of the Romo Family Trust, UTD: July 29, 2015. Defendants filed a motion to strike on May 9, 2018 and their answer on November 2, 2018. On January 9, 2019, Ruiz filed a First Amended Complaint adding minors Melanie Siomara Medina, Morayma Tamara Medina, Valeria Jiromy Medina, Kimberlyn Jisel Delgado, and Alicia Miranda Delgado as plaintiffs. The FAC asserts causes of action for: (1) violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; (2) tortious breach of the warranty of habitability; (3) private nuisance; (4) Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq; (5) negligence; and (6) premises liability. The FAC alleges Defendants failed to adequately maintain real property located at 8801 Tobias Avenue, Panorama City, CA 91402. The case is currently pending in Department 14 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse with trial set for November 9, 2020.

On July 7, 2020, Defendants filed a Motion to Transfer Proceeding to a Different Court Location with the hearing set in Department 1. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on July 17, 2020 and Defendants filed their reply on July 22, 2020. 

Defendants seek to transfer this action from the Stanley Mosk courthouse in the Central District to the Van Nuys Courthouse East in the Northwest District. 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. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2).) 

Defendants contend, based upon the zip code of the property, Plaintiffs “purposely downplayed the habitability claims in an attempt to try the case in downtown Los Angeles,” and “[t]he Stanley Mosk Courthouse is only proper if the case is an unlimited personal injury action.” (Mo. at 3-4.) However, in the Los Angeles Superior Court, unlimited personal injury cases arising in Panorama City must be filed in the Central District and unlimited civil cases asserting non-personal injury torts, real property claims, and contract claims may always be filed in the Central District. (LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B).) Accordingly, the case was not filed in an improper district within the meaning of LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2). 

Defendants also contend a transfer is warranted for the convenience of witnesses and to promote the ends of justice. (Mo. at 7-8; Reply at 5.) Considering that the same language appears in both LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) and CCP § 397(c), the court finds that a party acting under the authority of 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.) 

As argued by Plaintiffs in opposition, Defendants failed to meet their burden to establish the case was filed in an improper district or that there is any other basis to transfer the action pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2). Defendants merely argue a transfer will promote the ends of justice and serve the convenience of witnesses due to the proximity of the property and the parties to the Van Nuys Courthouse East. However, the only non-party witnesses mentioned in the declaration supporting the motion are housing inspectors without reference to their names, where they reside, their expected testimony, or whether the Stanley Mosk courthouse is an inconvenient location for their appearance at trial. (Schwartz Decl. ¶ 8.) Defendants failed to provide any of the relevant information to establish a transfer is warranted based upon the convenience of witnesses. (Peiser v. Mettler (1958) 50 Cal.2d 594, 607 (“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.”).)

Finally, while Defendants accuse Plaintiffs of forum shopping by filing the complaint in the Central District, (Mo. at 1, 4), it is Defendants who bear the appearance of forum shopping. This case has been pending before Judge Terry Green in Department 14 of the Central District since its filing on February 26, 2018. Defendants made their initial appearance on May 9, 2018 and the parties have filed their motions in limine in preparation for trial. “The general rule is that a party seeking a change of venue must act within a reasonable time.” (Newman v. Sonoma County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 625, 628.) Defendants have unreasonably delayed seeking a transfer of this action and the contention that Defendants hoped the case would settle does not excuse the delay. (Mo. at 5-6.)

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Proceeding to a Different Court Location is DENIED in its entirety. Plaintiffs’ request in opposition for attorneys’ fees pursuant to CCP § 396b(b) is DENIED as CCP § 396b applies to transfers between courts, not districts or courthouses within the same court. There is only one superior court in Los Angeles County. (See generally Glade v. Glade (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1441, 1449 (“Even though a superior court is divided into branches or departments, pursuant to California Constitution, article VI, section 4, there is only one superior court in a county and jurisdiction is therefore vested in that court, not in any particular judge or department. Whether sitting separately or together, the judges hold but one and the same court.”).)

Plaintiffs to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer CASTERLBANCO ERIC E ESQ.