Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 24PSCP00122, Date: 2025-02-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCP00122    Hearing Date: February 20, 2025    Dept: G

Petitioner Lanni Wang Chan’s Motion to Change Venue

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Petitioner Lanni Wang Chan’s Motion to Change Venue is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

This is a writ action. On March 11, 2024, Petitioner Lanni Wang Chan filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus against Respondent California Massage Therapy Council (CMTC).

On February 14, 2025, Chan filed the present motion. A hearing on the present motion is set for February 20, 2025, along with a CMC/Status of Transfer.

ANALYSIS

Chan moves to transfer the present action to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento (Sacramento Superior Court). For the following reasons, the court DENIES Chan’s motion.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397, “[t]he court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: (a) [w]hen the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court[;] (b) [w]hen there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein[;] (c) [w]hen the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change[; or] (d) [w]hen from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 397, subds. (a)-(d).)

In this case, Chan argues the present action was mistakenly filed in the present court when Business and Professions Code section 4616 requires the CMTC to “be sued only in the county of its principal office, which shall be in Sacramento, unless otherwise designated by the council.” But at least one decision by the California Supreme Court has suggested a “plaintiff can not move to change the place of trial on the ground that he has brought his action in the wrong county.” (Cook v. Pendergast (1882) 61 Cal. 72, 79.) Furthermore, while such relief would be available to a respondent seeking to transfer an action to the correct court, such relief is duplicative as to the petitioner where the petitioner already has the right to dismiss an action and refile it in the correct court. (Cf. Mansfield v. Pickwick Stages, North Division (1923) 191 Cal. 129, 131 [“The rule has long been established that a judgment of dismissal given upon motion of the plaintiff, before the hearing or trial of any issue of law or fact and without any determination of the merits of the cause, is no bar to a subsequent suit in any court upon the same cause of action.”].)

Accordingly, the court DENIES Chan’s motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Chan’s motion to change venue is DENIED.