S-CV-0042799 Wright, Shirley, et al vs. Likely Land & Livestock Co., Inc.

Motion to Change Venue to Modoc County

Defendants’ motion to change venue to Modoc County is denied.

Where defendants seek to transfer venue based on the assertion that the action was filed in the wrong court, defendants bear the burden to demonstrate that plaintiff’s venue selection is not proper under any applicable statutory grounds. Fountaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836. Where, as here, plaintiff’s complaint joins several separate causes of action, including both local and transitory claims, the transitory action controls as to venue. Central Bank v. Superior Court (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 913, 917-918. Transitory actions are subject to the general rule of venue that the action be tried in the county of defendant’s residence. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law and subject to the power of the court to transfer … 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.” In an action against several properlyjoined defendants, residing in different counties, plaintiff may choose any proper county as the venue for the action. Monogram Co. of Cal. v. Kingsley (1951) 38 Cal.2d 28, 34.

An action against a corporation is triable either in the county where the corporation has its principal place of business, or where the contract was made or to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arose, or where the breach occurred. Code Civ. Proc. § 395.5. Defendant bears the burden of showing venue is improper under all grounds listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5. Karson Industries v. Superior Court (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 7, 8-9. As admitted by the moving parties, defendant Placer Title Company, a California corporation, has its principal place of business in Placer County. As venue is proper as to this defendant, co-defendants have no right to compel transfer to their residence. Monogram Co. of Cal. v. Kingsley, supra, 38 Cal.2d at 34.

Defendants’ alternative request to transfer venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397, based on the convenience of witnesses and the interests of justice, also fails. The motion is premature as not all defendants have answered the complaint. Code Civ. Proc. § 396b(d); Buran Equipment Co., Inc. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1662, 1665. Further, defendants fail to submit admissible evidence identifying the names of witnesses expected to testify for both parties, the substance of their expected testimony, whether the witness has been deposed or given a statement regarding the facts of the case, the reasons why it would be inconvenient for the witnesses to appear locally, and the reasons why the ends of justice would be promised by the transfer. Juneau v. Juneau (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 14, 16. Defendants identify no nonparty witnesses who would be inconvenienced by trial of this action in Placer County. See Id; Wrin v. Ohlandt (1931) 213 Cal. 158, 160. The parties’ conveniences, including the conveniences of employees of a party, are generally not considered, absent extraordinary circumstances. Lieberman v. Superior Court (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 396, 401; Stute v. Burinda (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d Supp. 11, 17.

Based on the foregoing, the motion to transfer venue is denied.

4
Motion for Preference

Plaintiffs’ motion for preference is continued to July 26, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31.

The motion to transfer venue operated as a stay of any other motion or proceeding then pending or thereafter filed. Pickwick Stages System v. Superior Court (1934) 138 Cal.App. 448, 449. In light of the denial of the motion to transfer venue, the motion for preference is continued to afford defendants the opportunity to file a substantive opposition. Defendants may file and serve opposition to the motion on or before July 15, 2019. Plaintiffs may file and serve a reply brief on or before July 19, 2019.