Judge: Kenneth J. Medel, Case: 37-2023-00023857-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2024-01-12 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 11, 2024

01/12/2024  09:30:00 AM  C-66 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Kenneth J Medel

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00023857-CU-WT-CTL CORONA VS BRILLIANT GENERAL MAINTENANCE INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Change of Venue, 07/20/2023

Defendants Brilliant General Maintenance, Inc. and Linda Corsbie's Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED.

Defendants Brilliant General Maintenance, Inc. (BGM) and Linda Corsbie (Corsbie) move to transfer venue to Santa Clara County as the proper venue for this action under Code of Civil Procedure (C.C.P.) § 395 and Government Code § 12965. Defendants also argue under C.C.P. § 397, the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change of venue.

A FEHA action may be brought in any county: (1) in which the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed; (2) where the relevant records are maintained and administered; or (3) the plaintiff would have worked or would have had access to the public accommodation but for the alleged unlawful practice. (Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (c)(3).) '[I]f the defendant is not found within any of these counties, an action may be brought within the county of the defendant's residence or principal office.' (Ibid.) The FEHA venue statute under Gov. Code § 12965 establishes an exception to the general venue statute under C.C.P. § 395. (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 484.) The special FEHA venue statute governs over all of the causes of action, and prevails over the general venue statute (C.C.P. § 395), when the non-FEHA causes arise from the same facts as the FEHA cause. (Brown, supra, 37 Cal.3d at p. 487.) Nonetheless, a court has discretion under C.C.P § 397 to change venue in a FEHA case when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. (Richfield Hotel Management, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 222, 225-226.) Here, Plaintiff does not oppose or dispute Defendants' evidence the alleged unlawful practice did not occur in San Diego County and that the alleged unlawful practice was made by individuals physically located in Santa Clara County and Orange County. (ROA 11, Leiva Decl., ¶¶ 6-9; ROA 12, Corsbie Decl., ¶¶ 5-9.) Nor does Plaintiff oppose or dispute Defendants' evidence that Plaintiff's personnel file and employment documents are maintained in Defendant BGM's Orange County office. (ROA 11, Leiva Decl., ¶¶ 2, 10.) In opposition, Plaintiff argues that venue is proper in San Diego County as the County in which she 'would have worked or would have had access to the public accommodation but for the alleged unlawful practice.' (Gov. Code, § 12965(c)(3).) Plaintiff cites the allegations in her Complaint and Defendants' acknowledgement that Plaintiff worked out at BGM's San Diego office. However, Plaintiff does not address Gov. Code § 12965(c)(3) providing that 'if the defendant is not found within any of these counties, an action may be brought within the county of the defendant's residence or principal office.' 'If Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2997542  40 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  CORONA VS BRILLIANT GENERAL MAINTENANCE INC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00023857-CU-WT-CTL the defendant is not 'found' in any of the counties described in the three foregoing criteria, then section 12965, subdivision (b) provides two other options. If none of the three enumerated criteria are satisfied, then venue rests in the county of the defendant's principal office or residence.' (Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 306, 310.) Plaintiff has not shown that Defendant Corsbie can be found in San Diego County, and Plaintiff does not oppose or dispute Defendants' evidence that Defendant Corsbie resides in Santa Clara County, where Defendant BMG's principal place of business is also located. (ROA 12, Corsbie Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5, 8.) Thus, Defendants have shown that Santa Clara County is the proper venue for this action under Gov. Code § 12965(c)(3). In light of this ruling, the Court need not address Defendants' arguments to change venue based on C.C.P. § 397.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants' motion to transfer venue to Santa Clara County is granted.

Conclusion The minute order will be the final ruling of the Court. Defendants are ordered to serve written notice of ruling on all parties.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2997542  40