JONATHAN YUN VS. TOYOTA MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC.

(b) Subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, in an action arising from an offer or provision of goods, services, ... intended primarily for personal, family or household use, ... the superior court in the county where the buyer or lessee in fact signed the contract, where the buyer or lessee resided at the time the contract was entered into, or where the buyer or lessee resides at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action ...

“It is well established that a defendant is entitled to have an action tried in the county of his or her residence unless the action falls within some exception to the general venue rule.” (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 483.) “Section 395 codifies this rule and

July 24, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ provides that the trial of the action shall be in the county of the defendant’s residence, ‘[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law.’” (Ibid.)

In Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 838 the Court of Appeal explained that “whether the action is brought against a consumer defendant or by a consumer plaintiff, the venue provisions of section 395, subdivision (b) apply as long as the action arises from a consumer transaction specified in the statute.” Accordingly, an “an action arising from an offer or provision of goods, services, loans or extensions of credit intended primarily for personal, family or household use” may be tried where the buyer lived at the time the contract was entered into or at the time the complaint was filed.

C. Application

Having reviewed the parties’ briefing and the authority cited, defendant’s request to transfer venue to Los Angeles County Superior Court is denied. When plaintiff filed this case he resided in San Mateo County, which made his choice of venue in San Mateo County permissible even though he could also have filed suit elsewhere.

Although Code of Civil Procedure, section 397 provides that the court may transfer venue to another county for the purpose of promoting “the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice” (Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subd. (c)), in exercising its discretion, the court declines to do so here. Plaintiff filed this case approximately 18 months ago. Defendant answered the First Amended Complaint on May 2, 2025, over a year ago. Defendant’s delay in seeking a change of venue weighs against granting the motion.

Defendant knew from the outset that plaintiff purchased the vehicle in Los Angeles County, and had the vehicle serviced in Southern California. (See, e.g., FAC, ¶ 13 [“Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle from Keyes Lexus, an authorized TOYOTA dealership, in Van Nuys, California”]; ¶ 27 [plaintiff took the Vehicle to TOYOTA authorized warranty repair facility, South Bay Lexus, in Torrance, California, for warranty repair. South Bay Lexus performed a circuit inspection ...”].) Knowing these facts, defendant litigated this case for over a year before requesting a change of venue.

Further, although multiple witnesses appear to be based in the Los Angeles area, the depositions appear to have been notice via remote video, obviating their need to travel. And, assuming the case proceeds to trial, it is unclear from defendant’s proffered evidence which witnesses would likely testify.

Viewing all of the factors discussed in the parties’ briefing collectively, while defendant’s argument regarding witness convenience (or inconvenience) has some merit, affording due respect for plaintiff’s choice of venue, the court declines to transfer venue to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and

July 24, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.