Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV18356, Date: 2025-03-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV18356    Hearing Date: March 24, 2025    Dept: 74

Rojas v. Wiksell and Steinfeld CDA et al.

Defendants Wiksell and Steinfeld and CDA’s Motion to Transfer Action

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a legal malpractice action.

Plaintiff James Rojas (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants Wiksell and Steinfeld, CDA and Charles Cassey (Cassey) (collectively Defendants).

Defendants Wiksell and Steinfeld and CDA move to transfer the case to the appropriate venue.

LEGAL STANDARD

            Venue is proper in the county where the Defendants reside.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 395(a).)  In the case of a contract case, venue is proper in the county where the obligation is to be performed, where the contract was entered into, or where the defendant resides at the commencement of the action.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 395(a).)

DISCUSSION

             Here, Plaintiff alleges malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty but does not allege a contract between the parties.  Therefore, venue is proper where Defendants reside.  A corporation or business resides where it has its principal place of business, where the contract was made, or where the obligation or liability arose.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 395.5.)  Here, Defendant Charles Cassy is a resident of Ventura County.  Additionally, Wiksell and Steinfeld is a law partnership that practices in Ventura County.  CDA also only practices in Ventura County Superior Court.  The principal places of business for both CD and Wiksell and Steinfeld are in Ventura County.  Therefore, the action is proper in Ventura County.

            Plaintiff incorrectly asserts that venue is proper where Plaintiff resides or where he was arrested.  This assertion misapplies venue law. 

CONCLUSION

            The Court grants Defendants’ Motion to Transfer.

            Defendants to give notice.