Venue Selection

Question 1

Battaglia Enterprises Inc. v. Superior Court

Answer 1

Rule: Parties have the option of contracting for an agreeing on a venue. However, venue selection clauses are only invalid if it selects a venue not provided by legislature/code of civil procedure

P files a breach of contract action against D. However, P sued in a venue different than the venue stated in a valid venue selection clause signed by both parties

Defendant successfully filed a motion to transfer which was challenged via writ of mandate (under CCP 400)

Question 2

Forum Non Conveniens

Answer 2

Doctrine through which a court acknowledges that another forum or court where the case might have been brought is a more appropriate venue for a legal case, and transfers the case to such a forum.

Two Step Analysis:
1. The court must determine whether the alternate forum is a ‘suitable’ place for trial (low threshold, lawsuit must be possible in that forum)

2. If it is, consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action for trial in California.

Private Interest Factors:

• Ease of access to sources of proof,
• The cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses
• The availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.

Public Interest Factors:

• Avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars,
• Protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern,
• Weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.
• Interest in trying the case in a forum familiar with the applicable law
• The interest in avoiding unnecessary conflicts of laws.

Burden of proof: Defendant

Question 3

Fox Factory Inc. v. Superior Court

Answer 3

Consumers (Canadian) file a products liability action against D (Californian), who sold the consumers a bike part.

Plaintiffs bring suit in CA then initiate a similar action in Canada which includes doe defendants (tries to sustain 2 lawsuits) Defendant finds out and files motion to stay or dismiss for inconvenient forum.

Defendant admits personal jurisdiction but argues that Canada is a more convenient forum because of the pending litigation there. Also, P is a Canadian resident, the accident took place there, and all relevant
evidence is located there.

1. Private interests: Fox wouldn’t be able to compel witnesses to testify if this were tried in CA (they would all be in Canada)
2. Public: avoidance of piece-meal litigation (“Piecemeal litigation occurs when different courts adjudicate the identical issue, thereby duplicating judicial effort and potentially rendering conflicting)

Holding: Manufacturer was not required to show that California was a “seriously inconvenient” forum in order to prevail. The forum choice of a foreign plaintiff is not entitled to a presumption of convenience.

Standard of review: suitability of alternative forum- de novo; ultimate ruling – abuse of discretion

Question 4

Local v. Transitory Actions

Answer 4

Local: In a real estate/ real property action, venue is only proper where the property that is the subject of the action is located. (Real property relates to land, not personal possessions e.g. Car)

Transitory actions are all other actions

Question 5

What is Venue?

Answer 5

The proper county to file an action

Question 6

CA v. Federal Rules for Venue

Answer 6

Unlike in the federal system, CA courts transfer not dismiss if venue is improper

Question 7

Jurisdiction v. Venue

Answer 7

Jurisdiction: power of court to render a judgment binding on the parties

Venue: proper location where suit should take place

Question 8

When can the Court change venue?

Answer 8

The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases:

(a)  When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.
(b)  When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein.
(c)  When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.
(d)  When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act.

Question 9

Motions to Transfer Venue

Answer 9

398(a): If the court says the action should be transferred for a reason in 397b-d, it will be transferred to a court with jurisdiction over the case (the parties can agree to an alternative venue, but the court will chose the most convenient one if they cannot)

398(b): timely or improper/wrong motion