Case Number: SC116168 Hearing Date: April 16, 2014 Dept: O

SC116168
STEWART ET AL v. RADNET IMAGING

Defendant fails to establish that venue is improper. Plaintiff is entitled under CCP §395(a) to file suit either where any of the defendants reside or where the site of the injury occurred. Plaintiff establishes that a number of the individual defendants reside in Los Angeles County. While CCP §395.5 allows a plaintiff to file suit against a corporate defendant in the county where it maintains its principal place of business, the plaintiff may choose between that location and the residence of any other codefendants per CCP §395(a). Hale v. Bohannon (1952) 38 Cal.2d 458, 472CCP §395.5 is intended to expand the locations where a plaintiff may sue a corporate defendant, not limit them.

ANALYSIS: The general rule of venue is the county in which one of the defendants resides. See CCP §395(a). However, this general rule of venue is trumped by any statutes specific to the particular action at issue. For example, in any action for injury to person or personal property, or death as a result of negligence, the county in which the injury occurred is proper. Id. In cases where a defendant has contracted to perform in a certain county, a plaintiff may bring the action either in the county in which performance was to occur or the county in which one of the defendants reside. Id.

Personal injury actions are triable either in the county where defendant resides or in the county where the injury occurred (including the injury causing the death). CCP § 395(a). The choice is up to plaintiff; defendants have no right to have the action tried at their residence.

A corporation or association may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases. See CCP §395.5. “(T)he provision allowing suit against a corporation in certain counties other than that of its residence is for the benefit of the plaintiff and does not give the defendant corporation the same rights.” Beutke v. American Securities Co. (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 354, 361.

Defendant argues venue is improper because decedent’s surgery and resultant injury occurred in Ventura County. Defendant asserts the general rule of venue under CCP §395 does not apply, as CCP §§395 and 395.5 contain specific provisions specifying the situs of the injury and the principal place of a corporate defendant’s business as the proper venue.

Plaintiff argues that under CCP §395, venue is proper wherever any of the Defendants resides. Plaintiff submits that a number of individual defendants reside in LA County and LA County is therefore the proper venue. See Opposition, P. Phillips, ¶¶2-4.

Plaintiffs’ claims are personal injury claims and the site of the injury was Ventura County. Defendant Conejo’s place of business is also Ventura County. If Defendant Conejo were the only defendant, it would have successfully rebutted plaintiff’s choice of LA County as a venue. See Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 929 (to prevail on motion for a change of venue, corporate defendant required to demonstrate that its principal place of business not where complaint filed and also that alleged liability did not arise there).

However, Defendant Conejo is not the only defendant. Plaintiff establishes that the individual doctors reside in Los Angeles County and under those circumstances, either the residence of Defendant Conejo or the residence of the individual defendants is proper. Plaintiff thus has a choice of where to sue. Hale v. Bohannon (1952) 38 Cal.2d 458, 472. Plaintiff’s choice of Los Angeles County is therefore proper and the motion must be DENIED.