Case Number: 19STCV08953 Hearing Date: August 02, 2019 Dept: A

Scott v Burbank Unified School District

Motion to Change Venue

Calendar:

6

Case No.:

19STCV08953

Hearing Date:

August 02, 2019

Action Filed:

March 19, 2019

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Plaintiff Sylvia Veronica Scott

RP:

Defendant Burbank Unified School District

ALLEGATIONS:

The instant action arises from the alleged wrongful termination and defamation of Plaintiff Sylvia Veronica Scott (“Plaintiff”) by Defendant Burbank Unified School District (“Defendant”). In her Complaint Plaintiff alleges that she reported missing children and drug use, which caused Defendants to terminate her employment and label her a ‘whistleblower’, which has interfered with her employment at other educational institutions.

Plaintiff filed her Complaint on March 14, 2019, alleging two causes of action for (1) Wrongful Termination and (2) Defamation. Defendant filed an Answer on May 23, 2019.

PRESENTATION:

The instant motion to change venue was filed by Plaintiff on July 10, 2019. Defendant submitted opposition to the motion on July 22, 2019.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Plaintiff moves the Court to order the venue changed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the Orange County Superior Court.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Under Code of Civ. Proc. §397, the court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: (a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court; (b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein; (c) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change; (d) When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act; (e) When a proceeding for dissolution of marriage has been filed in the county in which the petitioner has been a resident for three months next preceding the commencement of the proceeding, and the respondent at the time of the commencement of the proceeding is a resident of another county in this state, to the county of the respondent’s residence when the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. Code of Civ. Proc. §397. A change of place of trial from one place to another in the same county is not within this section, which applies only to a change from one county to another. Barber v. Palo Verde Mut. Water Co. (1926) 198 Cal. 649. A change of venue under Code of Civ. Proc. §397(c) (allowing change of venue for the convenience of witnesses and for the ends of justice), militates towards a change in venue when witnesses are in the other venue, documents are in the other venue, and when the incident occurred in the other venue. See, e.g., Richfield Hotel Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 222 (Holding that the ends of justice militate towards a change of venue when “All of the designated witnesses live or work in the area… All of the relevant events allegedly took place in [the other county]. All of the relevant documents would be there.”).

Plaintiff’s motion is predicated on the argument that a fair trial cannot be conducted in the County of Los Angeles because (1) Plaintiff “experiences harassment, threats, and interference with the case from Los Angeles Court Personnel”, (2) “many staff members and possibly a Judge were recently given federal criminal charges”, and (3) that the “Commission on Judicial Performance in San Francisco, recently receives my complaints against both Los Angeles and Burbank Superior Courts.” Plaintiff relies on Code of Civ. Proc §394, San Francisco Found. v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 285, Stockton v. Wilson (1926) 79 Cal. App. 422, and other cases to argue that the instant matter should be transferred to Orange County as a neutral county.

In opposition, Defendant argues that Code of Civ. Proc. §394 does not stand for the proposition that Plaintiff can change venue in the instant circumstances, and, in fact supports maintaining the action in the instant county under the express language of the statute. Additionally, Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden under Code of Civ. Proc. §397 in establishing a prima facie basis for the transfer, as Plaintiff’s beliefs about the court staff do not constitute reasonable basis to believe that Plaintiff will be unable to empanel an impartial jury or that no judge in the County is qualified to act.

The question turns on whether Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated with evidence that there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had in the instant venue. To justify a transfer under subsection (b), “a showing of actual prejudice to the moving party” is required. Ohio Casualty Insurance Group v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal. App. 4th 444, 452. In Ross v. Kalin, infra, the court found that transfer was not required despite a showing that, 20 months prior to the hearing, “there had been a strong and bitter feeling of prejudice against the [moving party] in the minds of ‘a large number’ of residents of the county . . . [and non-moving parties and their friends] have been endeavoring to prejudice the minds of the people against [the moving party] to prevent his having an impartial trial.” Ross v. Kalin (1921) 53 Cal. App. 616, 619. The Court noted specifically that the difficulties of proof “would not justify the court in ignoring the rules of evidence to base its order on suspicion, or conjecture, or hearsay.” Id.

Here too, Plaintiff’s assertions of prejudice are based on personal outlooks, if not conjecture and hearsay. Nothing in the record indicates that Plaintiff has suffered any prejudice to her action by the conduct of the court staff; nothing in the record indicates that there is a federal criminal action against staff and judicial officers; and nothing in the record indicates that she will be incapable of having a fair trial in this county, by a jury of this county, and presided over by a judge of this county. At the inception of the case, there was an unfortunate incorrect assignment of the matter to Judge Berle; this occurred because the box number 5 on the Civil Case Cover Sheet had been checked “Yes” indicating that this case was a class action which is a type of case handled by Judge Berle. When it became apparent that the assignment was incorrect, Judge Jessner, the Supervising Judge of the Civil Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned the matter to this department.

So far as the Commission on Judicial Performance is concerned, their proceedings are made public when they reach a decision and publish their findings and orders, subject to review by the California Supreme Court.

In terms of a fair trial, jurors are assigned to this court house from a circle which extends up to, but no more than twenty miles from the courthouse. There is no inherent preference for jurors from the City of Burbank. The County of Los Angeles has a population greater than 41 other entire states, so the randomness of jury selection is assured by this fact if by none other. (Only California, Texas, Florida, New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois and Virginia have a larger population than Los Angeles County. Forty-one other states have a smaller population.)

The Court notes that Code of Civ. Proc. §394 provides that the proper venue for a local public agency brought into litigation as a defendant is generally the county in which that agency resides. See Code of Civ. Proc. §394(a) (“Whenever an action or proceeding is brought against a county, city and county, city, or local agency, in any county, or city and county, other than the defendant, if the defendant is a county, or city and county, or, if the defendant is a city, or local agency, other than that in which the defendant is situated, the action or proceeding must be, on motion of that defendant, transferred for trial to a county, or city and county, other than that in which the plaintiff, or any of the plaintiffs, resides, or is doing business, or is situated, and other than the plaintiff county, or city and county, or county in which that plaintiff city or local agency is situated, and other than the defendant county, or city and county, or county in which the defendant city or local agency is situated; provided, however, that any action or proceeding against the city, county, city and county, or local agency for injury occurring within the city, county, or city and county, or within the county in which the local agency is situated, to person or property or person and property caused by the negligence or alleged negligence of the city, county, city and county, local agency, or its agents or employees, shall be tried in that county, or city and county, or if a city is a defendant, in the city or in the county in which the city is situated, or if a local agency is a defendant, in the county in which the local agency is situated.”).

If plaintiff uncovers admissible evidence to support the basis for the request to change venue, a motion on these or other grounds may be filed at any time according to the statutes and the rules.

—

TENTATIVE RULING: Deny the motion to change venue.

—

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Plaintiff Sylvia Veronica Scott’s Motion to Change Venue came on regularly for hearing on August 02, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

The motion is: DENIED IN ITS ENTIRETY

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE