Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 23STCV05549, Date: 2023-09-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV05549    Hearing Date: September 6, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: September 6, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion to Transfer Venue

Moving Party: Defendants Board of Trustees of the California State University, Jake Zhu and Tomás Morales

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Clare Weber and Anissa Rogers

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.  

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.  

Gov. Code § 12965(c)(3) provides, “The superior courts of the State of California shall have jurisdiction of actions brought pursuant to this section, and the aggrieved person may file in these courts. An action may be brought in any county in the state in which the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, in the county in which the records relevant to the practice are maintained and administered, or in the county in which the aggrieved person would have worked or would have had access to the public accommodation but for the alleged unlawful practice, but 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.” This statute controls where, as here, FEHA claims are alleged. As the California Supreme Court held in Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 477, 487, “the wide choice of venue afforded plaintiffs by the FEHA venue statute effectuates enforcement of that law by permitting venue in a county which plaintiffs deem the most appropriate and convenient.”

Defendants moves to transfer venue to San Bernardino County. Defendants assert that venue is proper in San Bernardino because, in part, Plaintiffs were employees of CSU San Bernardino. Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in Los Angeles County because the injuries occurred in Los Angeles County, the unlawful practices alleged by Plaintiff Weber occurred in Los Angeles County, and Defendants reside in Los Angeles County.  

The Complaint alleges that venue is appropriate in Los Angeles County under section 12965(c)(3) because the unlawful practices alleged by Plaintiff Weber were committed in this county (Compl. ¶ 36). Plaintiff Weber also alleges that she resides in Los Angeles County (¶ 37), Defendant Morales lives in Los Angeles County (¶42) and Plaintiff Weber executed her contract with Defendants in Los Angeles County (¶ 36). In opposition to this motion, Plaintiff presents evidence showing Defendant Morales is a resident of Los Angeles County, Defendant CSU’s principal place of business is in Los Angeles County, Defendants’ central HR system, which is responsible for maintaining relevant records, is in Los Angeles County, and Plaintiff Weber resided and was largely working remotely in Los Angeles County at the time of the wrongdoing, establishing that the alleged unlawful practices occurred in Los Angeles County.

The Court has considered the requirements of Gov. Code § 12965(c)(3) and the relevant cases cited by the parties, including Malloy v. Superior Court (2022) 83 Cal. App. 5^th 543. Venue in Los Angeles County is proper.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED.