Judge Colin Leis, Case Number: 23STCV28851, Date: 2024-04-16 Tentative Ruling

On November 27, 2023, multiple plaintiffs (Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendant Reliant Real Estate Management, Inc. (Defendant). In the complaint, Plaintiffs allege violations of the Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA), invasion of privacy, and declaratory relief.

On February 22, 2024, Defendant filed this motion to transfer this action to the Superior Court of the County of Orange.

“[A] motion for change of venue must satisfy two requirements: (1) it must be shown the action is proper in the county to which the movant seeks transfer; and (2) it must be shown the county in which the action was filed was improper under any applicable theory.” (La Miranda Community Hospital v. Superior Court (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 39, 42.)

Defendant argues in part that Orange County is the proper venue for this action because Defendant is based there.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5, a party may sue a corporation in the county where (1) the contract is made or is to be performed, (2) the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs, or (3) the principal place of business of such corporation is situated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 395.5.)

In support of its motion, Defendant demonstrates the proposed transfer of venue would be proper because Defendant’s principal place of business is in Orange County. Moreover, Defendant’s officers and directors reside in Orange County. (Valdiva Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4; Request for Judicial Notice; Ex. A; Ex. B.)

Defendant also contends Los Angeles County is not the proper venue under the other criteria listed in Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5. First, Plaintiffs’ claims in the complaint do not arise from a contract. Rather, the claims are based on Defendant’s violation of a statute (the ICRAA) and common law privacy rights. (Complaint, ¶¶ 3, 27, 36.) Second, Defendant’s alleged obligation and liability arose in Orange County for several Plaintiffs. That is, much of Defendant’s alleged misconduct was connected to rental applications in Orange County. (Complaint, ¶¶ 9-14, 26, 37.) Consequently, Defendant is entitled to transfer venue from Los Angeles County to Orange County. (See Goosen v. Clifton (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 44, 49-50; Jhirmack Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d 715, 720 [“[W]hen a complaint states multiple causes of action, a defendant who is entitled to a change of venue as to one cause of action is entitled to a transfer of the entire action.”].) Thus, Orange County is the proper venue for this action.[1]

In opposition, Plaintiffs argue Defendant’s request to transfer this action to Santa Monica must be heard in Department 1. But Defendant makes no such request here. Plaintiffs also contend the motion is premature because a motion for change of venue based on convenience of witnesses and the interest of justice must be made after an answer is filed. Moreover, Plaintiffs claim Defendant’s motion is defective because it does not identify the witnesses. However, Defendant does not exclusively rely on the convenience of witnesses to support the transfer of venue.

[1] Because the court finds Orange County is the proper venue on these grounds, the court need not address Defendant’s alternative argument based on convenience of witnesses and the interest of justice.