Case Number: SS027430 Hearing Date: February 14, 2019 Dept: P

TENTATIVE RULING

Case Name: Tsang Han Wang v. California Department of Motor Vehicles, et al.

Case No.: SS027430

Respondent’s Motion to Change Venue [CCP 396b(a), LASC 2.3(a)(1)(A)]

Hearing Date: 2-14-2019

Petitioner seeks a writ of mandate stemming from an administrative proceeding concerning the suspension of his driver’s license. Respondent California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) moves to transfer this action to the Central District of the LASC, pursuant to Los Angeles County Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A).

Petitioner requested a copy of the relevant administrative record. The requested record was due on September 11, 2018 (per CCP §11523). The administrative record was served on Petitioner on September 11, 2018. Per CCP §1089.5, respondent had until October 11, 2018 to file a request for change of venue; the motion was timely filed on October 9, 2018.

Petitioner argues that venue is proper here because the DMV maintains an office in Santa Monica, and respondent failed to overcome the presumption that the filing court is the proper venue. Los Angeles County Rules of Court Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) provides that “every proceeding seeking a writ of prohibition or mandate (except as provided in subsection (B) below) must be filed in the Central District.” The August 20, 2018 petition is labeled “verified petition for writ of mandate.” Further, the subsection (B) exception for writs of mandate does not apply here, since the DMV does not function wholly within Santa Monica. Petitioner provided no basis to suggest that Rule 2.3(a)(1)(A) is inapplicable.

Finally, petitioner argues the motion should be denied because “the DMV has invoked the jurisdiction of this court.” Other than filing the instant motion, the DMV has not invoked this court’s jurisdiction.

Per Los Angeles County Rules of Court 2.3(a)(1)(A), transfer is mandatory. Motion GRANTED. The petition will be transferred to the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District.