Defendant U-Haul Co. of Arizona and Channara Thourk’s Motion to Transfer Action and for Sanctions; Defendant, Roman Toltoledo Gonzalez’s Motion to Change Venue
Jennifer Garcia v. Bakhtiyor Khushmamadov, et al.
Hearing date: April 24, 2026
MOTION (1): Defendant U-Haul Co. of Arizona and Channara Thourk’s Motion to Transfer Action and for Sanctions Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397, U-Haul Co. of Arizona (“UHAZ”) and Channara Thourk (“Thourk”) request transfer of this matter to the Superior Court in Kern County based on Monterey County not being the proper venue and the convenience of witnesses. UHAZ and Thourk further request sanctions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 296b.
MOTION(2): Defendant, Roman Toltoledo Gonzalez’s Motion to Change Venue Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 395(a); 396b(a) and 397(a) Roman Toltoledo Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) requests transfer of venue to the Superior Court in Kern County based on the underlying incident occurring in Kern County and venue in Monterey County not being proper.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE: Defendants’ UHAZ and Thourk request for judicial notice of 25CUB01162, Tiocson v. Santy, et al.; 25CUB01076, Gutierrez v. Villaverde et al.; 26CUB00021, Greed v. Gonzalez et al. are GRANTED, pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).
BACKGROUND: A multiple car collision during a significant fog incident in Kern County underlies Plaintiff’s suit for wrongful death based on the death of Pedro Canseco, Plaintiff, Jennifer Garcia’s father.
DISCUSSION (1)(2) (Motions of Defendants UHAZ, Thourk and Motion of Defendant, Gonzalez are discussed together.): Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395 in an action for injury or wrongful death “the superior court in either the county where the injury occurs or the injury causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of them reside at the commencement of the action, is a proper court for the trial of the action.” When the superior court in which the action is commenced is not the proper court, upon motion, a judge may transfer the case to the proper court.
Code of Civil Procedure section 396a(b). A court may transfer a case to another court “when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court” or “when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change”. Code of Civil Procedure section 397. It is the moving party’s burden to establish these grounds for transfer. Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 396, 401. To sustain this burden a detailed declaration specifying the name of each witness, including their expected testimony is required.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Juneau v. Juneau (1941) 45 Cal. App. 2d 14, 15-17. "Venue is determined based on the complaint on file at the time the motion to change venue is made." Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 482.
Defendants UHAZ and Thourk urge the court to transfer this case to Kern County, the location of the multiple vehicle collision, claiming that none of the defendants reside in Monterey County. Without providing evidence of such, UHAZ and Thourk additionally posit that the convenience of witnesses supports the transfer to Kern County. Further, UHAZ and Thourk propose that due to pending lawsuits related to the same accident pending in Kern County the ends of justice would be best promoted by transfer to the county of the accident.
Defendant, Gonzalez, suggests that Plaintiff’s unverified Complaint alleging venue due to “Plaintiff has notified additional potential Plaintiffs Berenice Perez Ramirez and Kevin Garcia Ramirez that they will file a claim in this court and name them as a nominal defendants” is insufficient. Gonzalez argues the court is required to transfer the action due to the accident giving rise to the suit occurring in Kern County and multiple other cases related to the accident being filed in Kern County.
Plaintiff contends “when venue is proper in more than one county, a plaintiff has the choice of where to filed the action” Battaglia Enterprises, Inc v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App. 4th 309, 313 and that venue is proper in part due to defendant, Claudia Elodia Antonio Blas (“Antonio”) residing in Seaside, Monterey County. It is apparent from the Complaint wherein all defendants are noted on Attachment 1, that naming Antonio was a strategy taken in good faith to include all of the relevant drivers involved in this incident and not a “sham” as suggested by UHAZ and Thourk.
UHAZ, Thourk and Gonzalez do no provide sufficient evidence to sustain their burden to allow transfer based on the “convenience of witnesses”. Further, the complaint includes a defendant, Antonio, who resides in Monterey County Both Motion to Transfer Venue by UHAZ and Thourk and Motion to Change Venue by Gonzalez are DENIED without prejudice. The request to transfer based upon Code of Civil Procedure section 397 is premature as not all defendants have answered. See Cholakian & Associates v. Superior Court (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 361, 371-372. UHAZ and Thourk’s requests for sanctions are DENIED.
NOTE RE: TENTATIVE RULING This tentative ruling becomes the court’s order, and no hearing shall be held unless one of the parties contests it by complying with Rule 3.1308 of the California Rules of Court and Monterey County Local Rule 7.9.
Those parties wishing to present an oral argument must notify all other parties and the Court no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing; otherwise, NO ORAL ARGUMENT WILL BE PERMITTED, AND THE TENTATIVE RULING WILL BECOME THE ORDER OF THE COURT AND THE HEARING VACATED. You must notify the court by emailing TentativeRulings@monterey.courts.ca.gov or by telephoning the Calendar Department at (831) 647-5800, extension 3040, before 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing.