Charles Newman vs Santa Barbara Graduate School Inc
Case No: 17CV05061
Hearing Date: Wed Oct 17, 2018 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Change of Venue

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is denied.

Background: This is a personal injury action, arising from plaintiff’s fall on a set of steps on property managed and maintained by defendant, at 801 Ladera Lane in Santa Barbara. Plaintiff alleges that a dangerous condition existed on the steps of the institution which caused him to fall, causing severe injuries. The complaint was filed on November 9, 2017. Defendant answered the complaint on January 10, 2018.

Motion: By motion filed August 20, 2018, defendant seeks to have the venue of this action transferred to the Santa Maria Division of the Santa Barbara Superior Court. The motion is based upon Code of Civil Procedure section 397(b), and contends that defendant cannot receive an impartial trial in Santa Barbara because plaintiff is a prominent and well-known resident of Montecito, was at one time a Director of the Montecito Water Board, and is now a Commissioner of the Montecito Planning Commission. Defendant contends that because it is faced with a trial which would draw jurors from the Montecito area, it could not receive a fair trial, and venue should be transferred to Santa Maria.

The motion attaches excerpts from the transcript of plaintiff’s deposition, in which he testifies that he was an incumbent Director of the Montecito Water Board at the time of his fall, and was running for reelection. Because of his injuries, he could not campaign door to door, and instead created a video. His campaign for reelection was unsuccessful. He is also currently a commissioner on the Montecito Planning Commission.

Opposition: Plaintiff opposes the motion, contending that defendant has not met the burden of demonstrating the prejudice required for such a motion, requiring that it be denied.

No reply documents were filed.

ANALYSIS: The motion is denied, for failure to meet its burden of proof.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397(b), the court may, on motion, change the place of trial when there is a reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had. A party is entitled to a change of venue if local prejudice of such a widespread nature can be shown that the court could conclude that it would be impossible to have a fair trial. (Cook v Pendergast (1882) 61 Cal. 72.) Such a motion requires a showing of actual prejudice to the moving party. (Ohio Casualty Ins. Group v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 444, 454.) As a practical matter, it will frequently be impossible to make an adequate showing until an unsuccessful attempt to select a jury has been made. (See J.I. Case Threshing Co. v. Copren Bros. (1917) 35 Cal.App. 70, 79.) Indeed, without making an attempt to secure an impartial jury, such a motion requires much more than a showing that the party is well and favorably known, or is of wide and consequential influence. (Id.)

The Court has significant doubt that the mere fact that plaintiff was once on the Montecito Water Board, and is currently a commissioner on the Montecito Planning Commission, will have any impact whatsoever on defendant’s ability to obtain a fair and impartial trial in southern Santa Barbara County. In any event, without much more than those facts, defendant has not even approached the burden of establishing any prejudice whatsoever, much less such a widespread prejudice that a fair trial could not be had. If, upon conducting voir dire, the court encounters any difficulty in empaneling an impartial jury, defendant may revisit the issue. However, based upon the very limited showing made by defendant, the motion is denied.