Rycz v. Superior Court, No. A163741 (D1d5 July 28, 2022)
This case arises out of the pretty awful death of a college student who, while incredibly drunk, staggered out onto the 5 freeway near USD, where she was hit by two cars. All the relevant events happened in San Diego County. Almost all of the witnesses are in San Diego County. But Plaintiff sued in San Fransisco because a significant defendant—Uber—is headquartered there.
Nobody claims that San Francisco isn’t a proper venue. It is, under Code of Civil Procedure § 395. But several of the defendants moved for transfer under § 397(c), which permits a change of venue “[w]hen the convenience of the witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.” The trial court denied the motion, reasoning that, given the new rules that liberally allow for remote testimony, § 367.75, Cal. R. Ct. 3.672, the location of the witnesses no longer mattered. A Defendant took a writ.
As the Court of Appeal explains, the new rules for remote appearances, which, without further legislative action, expire in 2023, don’t implicitly repeal the right to transfer a case to where it is convenient for most of the witnesses. Even under the new rules, remote testimony at a jury trial isn’t a given. It’s within the discretion of the trial court. And while § 367.75 reflects a legislative determination that remote testimony can sometimes be adequate, it does not suggest that it will be adequate all the time. So the motion should have been granted.
Writ granted.
