Case Number: 18BBCV00081 Hearing Date: July 26, 2019 Dept: A
American Express National Bank v Orange Grove Sean
Motion to Change Venue
| Calendar: | 1 | ||
| Case No.: | 18BBCV00081 | ||
| Hearing Date: | July 26, 2019 | ||
| Action Filed: | October 26, 2018 | ||
| Trial Date: | Not Set |
| MP: | Plaintiff American Express National Bank |
| RP: | N/A |
ALLEGATIONS:
The instant action arises out of Defendant Orange Grove Sean a/k/a Sean L. Oliver a/k/a SL Oliver’s (“Defendant”) alleged failure to pay Plaintiff American Express National Bank (“Plaintiff”) $53,478.67 in monies due and owing from credit card purchases.
Plaintiff filed its Complaint on October 26, 2018, filing causes of action sounding in Common Counts and Quantum Meruit.
PRESENTATION:
Plaintiff filed the instant motion on June 12, 2019, seeking to transfer the instant action to the Riverside County Superior Court, based on Defendant’s residence in Riverside County.
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Plaintiff American Express National Bank moves to transfer the instant action to the Riverside County Superior Court.
DISCUSSION:
Standard of Review – Under Code of Civ. Proc. §397, the court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: (a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court; (b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein; (c) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change; (d) When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act; (e) When a proceeding for dissolution of marriage has been filed in the county in which the petitioner has been a resident for three months next preceding the commencement of the proceeding, and the respondent at the time of the commencement of the proceeding is a resident of another county in this state, to the county of the respondent’s residence when the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. Code of Civ. Proc. §397. A change of place of trial from one place to another in the same county is not within this section, which applies only to a change from one county to another. Barber v. Palo Verde Mut. Water Co. (1926) 198 Cal. 649. A change of venue under Code of Civ. Proc. §397(c) (allowing change of venue for the convenience of witnesses and for the ends of justice), militates towards a change in venue when witnesses are in the other venue, documents are in the other venue, and when the incident occurred in the other venue. See, e.g., Richfield Hotel Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 222 (Holding that the ends of justice militate towards a change of venue when “All of the designated witnesses live or work in the area… All of the relevant events allegedly took place in [the other county]. All of the relevant documents would be there.”).
Here, Plaintiff represents that the County of Los Angeles is not the County in which Defendant resides, and the instant action should be transferred to the County of Riverside, where Defendant resides. As the county where the Defendant resides is the proper venue for the instant action pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §395(a), and there is no opposition to the instant motion, the Court will grant the motion.
RULING:
Grant the motion to change venue.
In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.
ORDER
Plaintiff American Express National Bank’s Motion to Change Venue came on regularly for hearing on July 26, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:
The motion is: GRANTED IN ITS ENTIRETY