Case Number: BC697997 Hearing Date: May 31, 2018 Dept: 1

#1 – Displayit Inc. v. Skechers USA Inc. II, et al. (BC697997)

On May 4, 2018 Defendant/Cross-Complainant Skechers USA Inc. II filed a motion to transfer this case from the Central District to the Southwest District (Torrance courthouse). Defendant argues the case should be transferred pursuant to CCP § 402(b) and LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) because both of Defendant’s witnesses – Kathryn Largent and Russell Williams – work in Manhattan Beach and therefore a transfer will promote convenience of witnesses and/or the ends of justice – only one of which is required under the Local Rule – because the Torrance courthouse is 6 miles from the moving party’s office, while the Stanley Mosk courthouse is more than 20 miles away. Defendant argues that since Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant’s witnesses are located in Irvine, there will be no prejudice to the opposing party.

The motion is supported by the separate declaration of Ms. Largent, declaring that Mr. Williams and she are the employees with the most litigation-relevant knowledge, that both of them work at the corporate offices in Manhattan Beach, and it would be very inconvenient for her and Mr. Williams (and any other employees) to have to travel to Los Angeles (more than 20 miles away) rather than the Torrance courthouse (6 miles away). (Largent Dec., ¶¶ 2, 4, 7.) Ms. Largent declares that both she and Mr. Williams will testify concerning the subject contract and the Plaintiff’s breach thereof. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6.)

No opposition has been received.

Plaintiff Displayit Inc. filed this case on March 14, 2018 against Defendant, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, account stated, and open book account. Plaintiff alleges in April 2017 it contracted with Defendant to custom-manufacture wall panels with signage to display Skechers shoes at various Shoe Carnival locations, but Defendant has failed to pay the remaining balance of $214,438.50 invoiced on July 18, 2017. On April 12, 2018 Defendant filed a form cross-complaint against Plaintiff and Donna Myers for breach of contract and fraud, pleading that Plaintiff failed to complete and install workmanlike installations pursuant to the contract – i.e., using casual labor for the remaining installations rather than using the master carpenter whose “work wall” sample at one store was to be a model for the remaining 96 stores’ installations, and that in addition to the $273,063 that Defendant paid Plaintiff, Defendant has paid over $300,000 to third-parties to complete the work and remedy the defective installations. The case is assigned to Judge Daniel Murphy in Department 32 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse, where an initial case management conference is currently scheduled for June 15, 2018.

LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) authorizes this court to transfer non-personal-injury 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). Under the optional filing requirements of LASC Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(B), this unlimited jurisdiction contract case properly proceeds in the Central District.

Defendant only argues that a transfer from the Central District to the Southwest District is appropriate for the convenience of witnesses and/or the interest of justice. Considering that the same language appears in both LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) and CCP § 397(c), the court finds that a defendant acting under the authority of LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2) should bear the burden of proof if he/she seeks a district transfer out of a presumptively and actually correct forum for the convenience of witnesses, 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. Id. Here, the submitted declaration of Ms. Largent fails to provide sufficient evidence to carry this burden of proof, as it addresses only the convenience of two employees of a party. (See generally Largent Dec.)

The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant/Cross-Complainant Skechers USA Inc. II’s motion to transfer this case from the Central District to the Southwest District.

Clerk to give notice.