Case Number: BC400279??? Hearing Date: July 28, 2016??? Dept: 310
POSEY v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE OF TREVON TOWNSEND?S LATE CLAIM PETITION TO KING?S COUNTY
TENTATIVE RULING
Grant motion to transfer venue to Kings? County; concurrently-submitted motion to relieve Townsend from the Government Code filing requirements is moot; Court will continue the Manriquez petition for relief from Government Code filing requirements to a subsequent date, after providing an opportunity to Defendants to submit an opposition
DISCUSSION
I. Background
Plaintiff David Michael Posey brought this putative class action against the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, alleging that he was deprived of his Constitutional and Human rights due to not being released upon completion of his sentence. He alleged that his over-detention occurred as a result of Defendants? failure, neglect, or disregard of his civil rights to:
(A) timely, properly and consistently calculate and adjust Plaintiff?s release date including, but not limited to, the application of all appropriate credits and modifications under or pursuant to all applicable law;
(B) implement a system for the timely release of prisoners upon the satisfaction or completion of their respective custody obligations and to continue to monitor, supervise, care for and notify respective penal institutions thereof; and,
(C) timely release Plaintiff and all others similarly situated from detention facilities, jails and prisons upon conclusion and satisfaction of having served their legally imposed prison obligations for their respective crimes. [First Amended Complaint (?FAC?), ?4.]
The acts alleged have resulted in damages to the class (calculated from the time each member of the class was legally required to be released from incarceration until the time when he or she was actually released from custody). [FAC, ?13.] Plaintiff also sought damages ?for being subjected to unwarranted, unnecessary, illegal and severely intrusive, humiliation and degrading strip searches in penal facilities during ?the period of over detention.?? [FAC, ?14.] Plaintiff alleged ?this is a continuing and serious problem as over 5,200 individuals have been overdetained a total of 80,386 days since 2008 and there is no indication that the problem has been rectified.? [FAC, ?16.]
Based on these and the other allegations more fully set forth in the FAC, Plaintiff alleged claims for wrongful detention ?violation of the California Constitution; false imprisonment; negligence ? breach of mandatory public entity duties; injunctive relief; and declaratory relief and repayment of illegally expended funds. Plaintiff also seeks a writ of mandamus against Defendants to compel Defendants to enforce their public duties as set forth in the Complaint. [FAC, ?137.]
On October 1, 2014, Plaintiff Posey and the Defendants stipulated to a dismissal of his claims with prejudice. The class allegations still remain. Petitioner Trevor Townsend, a putative class member in the litigation, was released on April 5, 2011 from CDCR?s custody, care, and control. He allegedly was released two days beyond his lawful release date. According to Townsend, it was not until October 2015 that he first learned that he was overdetained by the CDCR when he received a letter notifying him of the possibility that he was held beyond his earliest possible release date (?EPRD?) and asking him to consent to the release of his information so that he could be contacted regarding this class action.
Townsend claims that in accordance with Government Code ?945.4, he promptly presented his Government Claim Form regarding his over-detention to the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board (?VCGCB?) on December 23, 2015. In a letter dated January 12, 2016, the VCGCB did not accept his claim on the ground that Townsend?s ?cause of action accrued April 5, 2011.? The letter further stated that Townsend?s ?application for leave to file a late claim was filed more than one year from the date of the incident that is the basis of the claim,? and that as a result, VCGCB ?has no jurisdiction to consider the claim.?
Defendants move to transfer the petition to Kings County. Concurrently, Townsend, pursuant to Government Code ?946.6, has moved the Court for an order granting him relief from the requirements of Government Code ?945.4.
II. Motion To Transfer Venue
Defendants California Department of Corrections (?CDCR?) and State of California move for an order transferring venue in this case, from Los Angeles County to Kings? County.
The grounds upon which a court may transfer the action are entirely statutory. California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial, ?3:549 (The Rutter Group 2016). On timely motion, the court must order a transfer of an action ?when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.? CCP ??396b, 397(a).
?Except as otherwise provided by law and subject to the power of the court to transfer ? 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.? CCP ? 395(a); see Brown v. Sup.Ct. (C.C. Myers, Inc.) (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477.
With some statutory exceptions not applicable here, certain tort actions against the State for personal injury or death, or injury to personal property, are triable where the cause of action arose (i.e., where the injury occurred). California Practice Guide, Civil Procedure Before Trial, ?3:549 (The Rutter Group 2016) (citing Gov.Code ? 955.2).
Government Code ?955.2 provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, where the State is named as a defendant in any action or proceeding for death or injury to person or personal property and the injury or the injury causing death occurred within this State, the proper court for the trial of the action is a court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the injury occurred or where the injury causing death occurred. The court may, on motion, change the place of the trial in the same manner and under the same circumstances as the place of trial may be changed where an action is between private parties. Government Code ?955.2 (emphasis added).
Gov. Code, ? 955.2.
Further, Scott Kernan, in his capacity as Secretary of the CDCR, and Kathleen Allison, in her capacity as Director of the Division of Adult Institutions of the CDCR, are identified as employees causing the loss detained in Mr. Townsend?s underlying claim. CCP ?393(b) provides that, subject to the power of the Court to transfer actions and proceedings, the county in which the cause, or some part of the cause, arose, is the proper county for trial ?[a]gainst a public officer?for an act done by the officer or person in virtue of the office, or against a person who, by the officer?s command or in the officer?s aid, does anything touching the duties of the officer.?
Government Code ?946.6(a) provides in applicable part as follows:
(a) If an application for leave to present a claim is denied or deemed to be denied pursuant to Section 911.6, a petition may be made to the court for an order relieving the petitioner from Section 945.4. The proper court for filing the petition is a superior court that would be a proper court for the trial of an action on the cause of action to which the claim relates. If the petition is filed in a court which is not a proper court for the determination of the matter, the court, on motion of any party, shall transfer the proceeding to a proper court. (Emphasis added.)
Gov. Code, ? 946.6.
Here, Petitioner Townsend recently was substituted in as a class representative for David Posey, who had filed this case on February 15, 2013. Mr. Townsend identified in his December 23, 2015 claim to the Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board that the ?Location of the incident? was the California Substance Abuse and Treatment Facility (?SATF?). There is apparently no dispute that between Petitioner?s initial intake into CDCR custody on August 10, 2010 until his release from CDCR custody on April 5, 2011, Petitioner was incarcerated only at Wasco State Prison in Kern County and at SATF in Kings County. According to Defendants, Townsend?s claim is improperly brought in Los Angeles County. Under normal conditions, Kings County would be the appropriate venue to hear the case.
However, Defendants seek to transfer venue a number of years after this putative class action case was filed. The petition to transfer is not being brought at the inception of the case. As Petitioner Townsend notes, this case was initially filed by Plaintiff Posey in Los Angeles Superior Court. There was no issue, at the time of the filing of the compliant by Plaintiff Posey, that Los Angeles was the proper venue for the action. In late 2014, however, Plaintiff withdrew from the litigation, and class counsel was forced to find a new class representative. Following a Pioneer process, class counsel found Mr. Townsend. It is not clear whether ?955.2 or 946.6 apply to the scenario here ? i.e., where venue once decidedly was proper at the time of filing, but during the course of the case, the named Plaintiff is no longer in the litigation and the proposed new Plaintiff?s alleged injury occurred outside of Los Angeles County. The Court has found no case authority governing this specific situation.
Following Posey?s departure, there is no current named Plaintiff in the case whose injury, allegedly caused by the State, occurred in Los Angeles County. As noted above, the grounds upon which the Court may transfer venue are entirely statutory. The applicable statutes are ?955.2 and 946.6. Under the language of those statutes, there is no limitation on the Court?s authority to transfer a case where Los Angeles County is no longer a proper venue for the case.
It should be noted that, through a separate petition, Petitioner Daniel Manriquez is also seeking to be relieved from the requirements of Government Code ?945.4. This petition was reserved for the date the instant motion to transfer and the Townsend petition for relief from ?945.4 are set to be heard. However, there has been no substantive opposition filed to Mr. Manriquez?s petition. Instead of filing a substantive opposition to that petition, Defendants filed a ?Notice of Stay of Proceedings? on July 8 in this case, stating that the reason for the stay was because of the Defendants? filing of the motion to transfer venue. By and through the stay notice, Defendants are seeking to have the Court decide the motion to transfer venue of the late claim petition as to Mr. Townsend only.
The existence of the Manriquez petition is significant, because if the Court were to grant Manriquez?s petition (and allow him to be a class representative), the case would remain in Los Angeles County. Manriquez was housed at California State Prison, Los Angeles County (in the city of Lancaster), and thus, venue would be appropriate in LA County under Government Code ?955.2. However, the motion to transfer venue automatically stays any other pending matter (including Manriquez?s petition for relief from the Government Code ?945.4 filing requirements). See Pickwick Stages System v. Superior Court (1934) 138 Cal.App.448, 449 (noting that an application to transfer acts as a supersedeas or stay of proceedings, and must be disposed of before any other steps in the case can be taken). As such, the Court must resolve the motion to transfer first.
Kings County ? the county where Petitioner Townsend?s injuries allegedly occurred ? is the proper venue under ?955.2 and 946.6(a) above. The motion to transfer venue of Townsend?s late claim petition to Kings? County is therefore granted. The Court need not hear the concurrently-submitted motion to relieve Townsend from the Government Code filing requirements ? that motion will be heard by a judge in Kings County.
With respect to Mr. Manriquez?s petition for relief from the ?945.4 filing requirements is, the Court will continue the hearing date and allow Defendants to file an opposition to the petition, with an opportunity for Mr. Manriquez to file a reply brief.