RONALD L. PONCIANO VS CITRUS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******7764 Hearing Date: February 17, 2022 Dept: 1

Tentative Ruling

Judge David J. Cowan

Department 1

Hearing Date: Thursday, February 17, 2022

Case Name: Ronald L. Ponciano v. Citrus Community College Dist., et al.

Case No.: *******7764

Motion: Transfer

Moving Party: Defendants Citrus Community College Dist., Perri, and Sammis

Responding Party: N/A (unopposed)

Notice: OK

Ruling: The Motion to Transfer is DENIED. Defendants are ordered to file and serve a Notice of Related Case in both cases within ten days of this Order consistent with CRC 3.300(d).

Defendants to give notice.

If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear remotely by LA Court Connect.

BACKGROUND

On October 13, 2021, Plaintiff Ronald L. Ponciano filed a Complaint against Defendants Citrus Community College District, Geraldine M. Perri, Robert Sammis, and Does 1-100 stating causes of action for age discrimination, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, hostile work environment, and failure to prevent discrimination and harassment under FEHA.

On January 21, 2022, Defendants Citrus, Perri, and Sammis filed a Motion to Transfer seeking to transfer this case from the Stanley Mosk courthouse in the Central District to Department O of the Pomona courthouse in the East District. The Motion is unopposed.

DISCUSSION

Applicable Law

“The term ‘venue’ denotes the particular county within the state where a case is to be heard,” which is “determined according to the venue statutes,” CCP sec. 392 et seq. (K.R.L. Partnership v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 490, 496.) Los Angeles Superior Court (LASC) Local Rule 2.3 regulates transfers between the several districts of the Superior Court within Los Angeles County. (See Local Rule 2.2 (identifying districts and the courthouses within each district).) Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) authorizes the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division to “transfer a civil case from one district to another” for “the convenience of witnesses or to promote the ends of justice.” The burden of proof in seeking transfer “rests on the party moving for transfer to establish grounds for change of venue.” (Pesses v. Superior Court (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 117, 124.)

“Whenever a party in a civil action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another action or proceeding pending, dismissed, or disposed of by judgment in any state or federal court in California, the party must serve and file a Notice of Related Case.” (Cal. Rules of Court (CRC) 3.300(b); CRC 3.300(f) (the duty to file a Notice “is a continuing duty that applies . . . whenever a party learns of a related action or proceeding.”)) The Notice of Related Case must “[l]ist all civil cases that are related by court, case name, case number, and filing date,” identify the earliest-filed case, and “[d]escribe the manner in which the cases are related.” (CRC 3.300(c); CRC 3.300(a) (identifying bases for relation).)

“Where all the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases . . . the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.” (CRC 3.300(h)(1)(A).) “In the event that any of the cases listed in the notice are not ordered related under (A), (B), or (C), any party in any of the cases listed in the notice may file a motion to have the cases related” with “the presiding judge or the judge designated by the presiding judge.” (CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D).) The Supervising Judge of the Civil Division (sitting in Department 1) is the designee of the Presiding Judge for such motions in the Los Angeles Superior Court.

Application to Facts

Defendants seek to transfer this case to Department O of the Pomona courthouse, where LASC civil case no. 19PSCV00139 is pending. Defendants argue the two cases are related under CRC 3.300 and indicate they will seek consolidation of the two cases if the Motion is granted. (Motion, p. 3-5.) Principally, Defendants argue the later-filed case is a response to entry of judgment in their favor in the earlier-filed case after Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings was granted, and indicate that judgment is pending appeal. (Motion, p. 1-2, 4-5.)[1] Based on this, Defendants argue the later-filed case should be transferred to the bench officer in the earlier-filed civil case, Judge Peter A. Hernandez, who is best-positioned to address the allegedly overlapping issues in these cases, including whether the later-filed case is an end-run around Judge Hernandez’s earlier orders. Defendants secondarily argue a transfer is appropriate under CCP sec. 397 and LASC Local Rule 2.3 because “key witnesses all either reside or work near the East Judicial District” and the “circumstances and events giving rise to the alleged injury all transpired in and near the East Judicial District.”

Essentially, Defendants seek to relate later-filed civil case *******7764 to earlier-filed civil case 19PSCV00139. However, Defendants have not yet filed a Notice of Related Case in both cases, which would be first addressed by the bench officer in the earlier-filed civil case, Judge Peter A. Hernandez. (CRC 3.300(h)(1)(A) ("Where all the cases listed in the notice are unlimited civil cases . . . the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.”); CRC 3.300(d) (Notice must be filed in “all pending cases.”)) Department 1 has authority to deem civil cases related only “[i]n the event that the judge designated under [CRC] 3.300(h)(1)(A)(B)(C) to make the decision, does not order related any of the cases set forth in the Notice of Related Cases.” (Local Rule 3.3(f)(3) (emphasis added); CRC 3.300(h)(1)(D).)

Department 1 has no authority under CRC 3.300 and Local Rule 3.3 to relate the cases here. No judge has refused to order these cases related after identification in a Notice of Related Case for one simple reason—no Notice of Related Case. While Defendants fault Plaintiff for failing to file a Notice of Related Case, Defendants were equally obliged to do so as parties to both cases. (Motion, p. 3 (“Plaintiff has clearly failed to follow the mandate of . . . [CRC] 3.300(b)”); CRC 3.300(b) (“Whenever a party in a civil action knows or learns that the action or proceeding is related to another action . . . the party must serve and file a Notice of Related Case.”); CRC 3.300(f) (continuing duty applies “whenever a party learns of a related action”))

For this reason, the Motion to Transfer is premature. Defendants have not pursued relation of the cases pursuant to CRC 3.300 despite arguing the cases are related. If the cases are deemed related, the later-filed case would be transferred to Department O of the Pomona courthouse to meet the earlier-filed case—which is the relief sought in this Motion. (CRC 3.300(h)(1)(A) (“the judge who has the earliest filed case must determine whether the cases must be ordered related and assigned to his or her department.”)) It is plausible that the judge in the earlier-filed case would deem the later-filed case related—as Defendants argue throughout the Motion, "Judge Hernandez is intimately familiar with the facts of the [earlier-filed] case," "his prior rulings" therein, and Ponciano's appeals of his rulings. (Motion, p. 4.) Thus, Judge Hernandez is well-positioned to determine whether the later-filed case is related to the earlier-filed case. There is no authority for Department 1 to now determine whether the cases are related.

To the extent Defendants seek a transfer to Department O of the Pomona courthouse under CCP sec. 397 or Local Rule 2.3(b), the Motion must be denied. CCP sec. 397 pertains to “the particular county . . . where a case is to be heard,” authorizing transfers between different superior courts, but Defendants are not seeking a transfer to a courthouse outside of Los Angeles County. (K.R.L., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at 496.) Transfers between judicial districts of the Los Angeles Superior Court are governed by Local Rule 2.3(b), which authorizes the “Supervising Judge of the Civil Division . . . [to] transfer a civil case from one district to another” district. Local Rule 2.3 does not authorize transfer of a civil case to another specific courtroom, only to another judicial district generally. As discussed above, Defendants desire a transfer specifically to Department O, not just any department of the Pomona courthouse, in order to put the later-filed case before Judge Hernandez. Such a transfer is not authorized by Department O and must instead be pursued through the related case procedure.

Therefore, the Motion to Transfer is DENIED and Defendants are ordered to file and serve a Notice of Related Case in both cases within ten days of this Order consistent with CRC 3.300(d).

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Transfer is DENIED. Defendants are ordered to file and serve a Notice of Related Case in both cases within ten days of this Order consistent with CRC 3.300(d).

Defendants to give notice.

If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear remotely by LA Court Connect.