Case Number: BC527622    Hearing Date: August 28, 2014    Dept: 1

#2 – Zacher, et al. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. (BC 527 622)

This is a wrongful death and survival action filed by Plaintiff Vickie L. Zacher, et al. (Plaintiffs), for the death of pilot John I. Zacher in a helicopter crash that occurred near the City of Hackensack, Minnesota, on November 24, 2011. Since the helicopter was manufactured by Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. in Torrance, California, the Plaintiffs filed suit on November 15, 2013, in the Central Judicial District, and the case was assigned to Department 91.

On July 30, 2014, Judge Gregory Keosian of Department 91 – at the direction of Department 1 – determined that this case was more complicated than the personal injury courts could manage and reassigned the matter to Judge F. Shaller in Department 46 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

Defendant Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc. (Defendant Robinson), which is apparently joined by Defendants AVCO Corporation and Lycoming Engines (AVCO Defendants), now moves to transfer this case from the Central Judicial District to the Southwest Judicial District pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2). Defendant Robinson highlights the fact that no injury or damage alleged in the Plaintiffs’ Complaint occurred in the Central Judicial District. The Defendant also maintains that all of its Torrance-based engineers and technical personnel who will be called as witnesses will suffer hardship if made to appear in the Central Judicial District. In this regard, the Defendant is joined by the AVCO Defendants, which aver that their own prospective employee-witnesses will find it more convenient to attend hearings set at a court near the Los Angeles International Airport.

In opposition, the Plaintiffs maintain that the present motion should have been filed with Department 46, given that Department 1 already directed the case to Judge Shaller for all purposes. The Plaintiffs also contend that the Defendants, at best, have established that the Southwest Judicial District is a forum convenient for them, not non-party witnesses who may come from Minnesota. Additionally, the Plaintiffs highlight their claim that the helicopter in question was sold by Schreib-Air, Inc., operating out of Kansas, not Defendant Robinson, operating out of Torrance, California.

In reply, Defendant Robinson disputes the contention that the Central Judicial District is more convenient for party-witnesses coming from Torrance or out-of-state given the proximity of the airport to the Torrance courthouse. The Defendant also relies on inapposite venue-related authorities to support its argument that the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum is not a substantial factor in the question of transfer and its argument that this court has authority to execute the requested transfer.

This court certainly is authorized to transfer civil cases from one judicial district to another for the convenience of witnesses or to promote the ends of justice, but under LASC Local Rule 2.3(b)(2), not venue-related authorities that concern a change from one county to another rather than a change of forum within the same county. See Barber v Palo Verde Mut. Water Co. (1926) 198 Cal. 649, 651 – 652. Venue-related authorities are thus not entirely apposite to the issue of transfer to the Southwest Judicial District.

Nonetheless, there is some analogy with statutory motions for change of venue. Just as in motions for change of proper venue, 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 or to promote the ends of justice. 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.

But, these analogous requirements have not been satisfied by this motion, which is not accompanied by the declarations of non-party witnesses. The motion, therefore, has arguably not met its corresponding burden of proof.

Accordingly, the court DENIES the Defendants’ motion to transfer this case from the Central Judicial District to the Southwest Judicial District.