Ngozi Kim Udenkwo v. Chris Le Feuvre

process. Sanctions are not warranted against Defendant because the motions were denied as Defendant provided proper responses and objections.

However, "[t]he court shall impose a monetary sanction ... against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes or opposes a motion to compel a further response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2030.300, subd. (d).)

Here, Plaintiff unsuccessfully makes this motion to compel further responses without substantial justification. Defendant's counsel requests $1,770.00 in sanctions for five hours of attorney work preparing the opposition to Plaintiff's motion and an anticipated hour reviewing the reply brief and attending the hearing on the instant motion at a billable rate of $295.00 per hour. (Yu Decl., P.P. 13-14.)

The Court finds the hourly rate reasonable but reduces the time claimed due to the motion's lack of complexity. The Court awards sanctions in the reduced amount of $590.00 for two hours of attorney work. Sanctions are imposed jointly and severally against Plaintiff and counsel of record.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories, Set Four, Nos. 69, 70, 71, and 72. Monetary sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff and counsel of record, jointly and severally, in the amount of $590.00, payable to counsel for Defendant within 20 days of notice of this order. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 8, 2026 _____________________________ Sarah J. Heidel Judge of the Superior Court

County of Los Angeles - NORTHEAST District Department V NGOZI KIM UDENKWO, Plaintiff, vs. CHRIS LE FEUVRE, Defendant. | Case

No.: |

| | | Hearing Date: | September 8, 2026 | | | Time: | 8:30 a.m. | | | [Tentative] Order RE: MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE | MOVING PARTY: Defendant Chris Le Feuvre RESPONDING PARTY: None. The Court considered the moving papers filed in connection with the instant motion.

BACKGROUND

On April 1, 2026, self-represented Plaintiff Ngozi Kim Udenkwo ("Plaintiff") brought the instant action against self-represented Defendant Chris Le Feuvre ("Defendant") alleging a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On May 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint.

On June 10, 2026, Defendant filed the instant motion to transfer venue. No opposition was filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

"[T]he superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 395, subd. (a).)

The court may change the place of trial when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.¿ (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 397, subd. (c).)¿

Where a party makes a motion for change of venue, including on the grounds of forum inconvenience, "[t]he moving party must overcome the presumption that the plaintiff has selected the proper venue. Thus, it is the moving defendant's burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff's venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds." (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836. [internal citations and quotation omitted].)

DISCUSSION

Defendant requests that the Court transfer venue from the Alhambra Courthouse to the Van Nuys Courthouse pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397, subdivision (c).

In support, Defendant argues that seven Los Angeles courthouses are located closer in proximity to his residence in Van Nuys and Plaintiff's residence in North Hollywood than the Alhambra Courthouse. Further, Plaintiff declares that all operative facts underlying this dispute occurred in the San Fernando Valley and Malibu. (Feuvre Decl., P. 3.)

The parties' convenience should not be considered in determining whether to grant a motion for change of venue. (See Rycz v. Superior Court (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 824, 836.)

Defendant does not argue that the Alhambra Courthouse lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiff or Defendant or provide any further arguments to overcome the presumption that Plaintiff selected the proper venue.

Additionally Plaintiff and Defendant reside within Los Angeles County and therefore Los Angeles County Superior Courts, including the Alhambra Courthouse, have jurisdiction over the parties. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 395, subd. (a).)

Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's motion to transfer venue.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendant Chris Le Feuvre's motion to transfer venue. Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: September 8, 2026 _____________________________ Sarah J. Heidel Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->