Preview
WA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Jan-11-2016 9:47 am
Case Number: CGC-16-549804
Filing Date: Jan-11-2016 9:46
Filed by: TJ MOROHOSHI
Juke Box: 001 Image: 05227267
ORDER
GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK, N.A. VS. BILLYFLOAT, INC. ET AL
001005227267
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.WEBB LEGAL GROUP
(415) 277-7200
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Coe NA HW PF we Ny =
yon N oN NN emis
BNRRRPBRBBEHBSESGeTA DEBRA S
y I ED
Sen i aiwisCO Vvuti, superior Court
WILLIAM T. WEBB #193832
JENNIFER D. YU'#291603
155 Montgomery Street, Suite eLz™!
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 277-7200
(415) 277-7210 (fax)
Attorneys for BILLFLOAT, INC.,
RYAN GILBERT, and SEAN O’MALLEY
Depuny Clerk
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
(Unlimited Jurisdiction)
C6C*16- 549804
GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK, N.A., a National) Case No,: 34-201 5-00185106
Bank, . 4
. [PROPOSED/ORDER GRANTING
’ Plaintiff DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE
VENUE
v.
Date: December 9, 2015
BILLFLOAT, INC., RYAN GILBERT, SEAN ) Time: 9:30 a.m.
O’MALLEY, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Dept: 47
Defendants.
* [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUEWEBB LEGAL GROUP
(415) 277-7200
155 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
San Francisco, CA 94104
Co ent A WH FF YW DN
NNN NY! Be Be eB Se Be es Be Se
BNRRRRPBBRHEBSEFEWIABDBEBTHHS
The motion of Defendants Billftoat, Inc., Ryan Gilbert and Sean O’Malley (herein
“Defendants”) to change venue was set for hearing in Department 47 of this Court on December
9, 2015. Having read the motion, the memoranda and the declarations filed by the parties, and
satisfactory evidence having been presented, we
IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. This case shall be
transferred to San Francisco County. Plaintiff shall pay transfer fees.
pate: DEC 11 205
Honorable Robert C. Hight
Judge of the Superior Court,
County of Sacramento
1
{PROPOSED} ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUESUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 12/09/2015 TIME: 09:30:00 AM ‘DEPT: 47
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Robert Hight
. . 10da, K. Wells
REPORTER/ERM: C60-16-849804
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:
CASE NO: 34-2015-00185106-CU-CO-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 10/02/2015
CASE TITLE: Golden Pacific Bank NA vs. Billfloat Inc
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: ,13105825
EVENT TYPE: Motion for Change of Venue - PJ Law and Motion
MOVING PARTY: Ryan Gilbert, Billfloat Inc, Sean O'Malle
CAUSAL DOCUMENTIDATE FILED: Motion for Change of Venue, 11/10/2015
APPEARANCES
No Appearance by all parties
Defendants BillFloat, Inc. ("BillFloat"), Ryan Gilbert ("Mr. Gilbert"), and Sean O'Malley's ("Mr, O'Malley")
(collectively the "Defendants") motion to transfer venue to:San Francisco. County is GRANTED. Plaintiff
shall pay transfer fees.
Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. However, the Court does not assume the truth of
matters stated in court documents other than Orders. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the
Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v.
Dep't of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204
Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121; Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113;
1 Witkin, Cal. Evid. (5th ed.) Judicial Notice, § 21 at p. 128 ["Judicial notice of the authenticity and
contents H an official document does not establish the truth of all recitals therein") [collecting
authorities].
Defendants assert that the instant action should have been brought as a cross-complaint in a related
action filed by BillFloat in San Francisco in August 2015 ("San Francisco Action"), as both actions
involve two of the same parties and arise from disputes regarding the same joint marketing agreement.
Defendants further argue that venue is proper in San Francisco County and improper in Sacramento
County because BillFloat's principal place of business is in San Francisco, Mr. O'Malley resided in San
Francisco County when the complaint was filed, and Mr. Gilbert resided in Alameda County when the
complaint was filed. Accordingly, two defendants have their place of residence in San Francisco County
while no defendant resides in Sacramento County. Defendants further assert that venue is also proper
in San Francisco County, and improper in Sacramento County, because the San Francisco Superior
Court has already ruled that the relevant marketing agreement in these actions was formed in San
Francisco. Defendants contend that, under the mixed-action venue rule, transfer to San Francisco
County is mandatory, because Sacramento County is not the proper venue for Plaintiff's cause of action
for fraud, while San Francisco County is proper. And because the cause of action for fraud is not
properly brought in Sacramento, the entire case must be transferred. ‘
Plaintiff Golden Pacific Bank N.A. ("Plaintiff") has filed a non-opposition, conceding that venue is proper
in San Francisco County and improper in Sacramento County under the mixed action rule. Plaintiff
further states that it reserves the right to have the case re-transferred to Sacramento after all Defendants
DATE: 12/09/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 47 Calendar No. 1CASE TITLE: Golden Pacific Bank NA vs. Billfloat Inc CASE NO: 34-2015-00185106-CU-CO-GDS
have answered the complaint.
As set forth in Jhirmack Enterprises, “when a complaint states multiple causes of action, a defendant
who is entitled to a change of venue as to one cause is entitled to a transfer of the entire action."
(Jhirmack Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 96Cal. App. 3rd 715, 720; see also Ah Fong v.
Sternes (1889) 79 Cal. 30, 33). In a mixed action, a plaintiff alleges two or more causes of action each of
which is governed by a different venue statute or two or more defendants are named subject to different
venue standards. (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 477, 488). In such cases, venue must be
proper as to all causes of action and defendants joined, if not any defendant is entitled to seek a change
of venue usually to the county where the defendant resides. (Weil & Brown, supra.3-124-25).
This case is a mixed action. The Court finds that venue in the forum is not proper as to the Defendants,
as Plaintiffs cause of action for fraud is triable where all or some of the defendants reside. (Bybee v.
Fairchild (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 35, 37.) Accordingly, as Plaintiff concedes, Defendants are entitled to
transfer venue to the county in which some or all of the Defendants reside, which in this case is San
Francisco County. Accordingly, the motion to change venue will be granted.
This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a
hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument
must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 4:00 p.m. on the
day before the hearing.
Parties requesting a court reporter should contact the courtroom clerk at the number stated above.
Please be advised that there will be a $30.00 fee for court reporting services in civil proceedings lasting
under one hour. (Govt. Code §68086(a)(1)(A).)
COURT'S RULING:
The Tentative Ruling was accepted and no appearance was requested.
The Court orders this matter be transferred to the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Francisco on payment of all the necessary fees required by law. The clerk of this court is authorized to
transfer all the pleadings and papers herein to the clerk of the receiving court.
DATE: 12/09/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 47 Calendar No. 1SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
CIVIL
TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 07, 2015
EVENT DATE: 12/09/2015 EVENT TIME: 09:30:00 AM DEPT.: 47
JUDICIAL OFFICER:
CASENO.: —34-2015-00185106-CU-CO-GDS
CASE TITLE: GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK NA VS. BILLFLOAT INC.
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Contract - Other
Rae -
EVENT TYPE: Motion for Change of Venue - PJ Law and Motion ¢ M C 16 5 4 9 8 na
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Change of Venue, 11/10/2015
Defendants BillFloat, Inc. ("BillFloat"), Ryan Gilbert ("Mr. Gilbert"), and Sean O'Malley's ("Mr. O'Malley")
(collectively the "Defendants") motion to transfer venue to San Francisco County is GRANTED. Plaintiff
shall pay transfer fees.
Defendants' request for judicial notice is GRANTED. However, the Court does not assume the truth of
matters stated in court documents other than Orders. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the
Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v.
Dep't of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204
Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121; Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113;
1 Witkin, Cal. Evid. (6th ed.) Judicial Notice, § 21 at p. 128 ["Judicial notice of the authenticity and
contents f an official document does not establish the truth of all recitals therein"] [collecting
authorities].
Defendants assert that the instant action should have been brought as a cross-complaint in a related
action filed by BillFloat in San Francisco in August 2015 ("San Francisco Action"), as both actions
involve two of the same parties and arise from disputes regarding the same joint marketing agreement.
Defendants further argue that venue is proper in San Francisco County and improper in Sacramento
County because BillFloat's principal place of business is in San Francisco, Mr. O'Malley resided in San
Francisco County when the complaint was filed, and Mr. Gilbert resided in Alameda County when the
complaint was filed. Accordingly, two defendants have their place of residence in San Francisco County
while no _ defendant resides in Sacramento County. Defendants further assert that venue is also proper
in San Francisco County, and improper in Sacramento County, because the San Francisco Superior
Court has already ruled that the relevant marketing agreement in these actions was formed in San
Francisco. Defendants contend that, under the mixed-action venue rule, transfer to San Francisco
County is mandatory, because Sacramento County is not the proper venue for Plaintiff's cause of action
for fraud, while San Francisco County is proper. And because the cause of action for fraud is not
properly brought in Sacramento, the entire case must be transferred.
Plaintiff Golden Pacific Bank N.A. ("Plaintiff") has filed a non-opposition, conceding that venue is proper
in San Francisco County and improper in Sacramento County under the mixed action rule. Plaintiff
further states that it reserves the right to have the case re-transferred to Sacramento after all Defendants
have answered the complaint.
As set forth in Jhirmack Enterprises, “when a complaint states multiple causes of action, a defendant
Event ID: 2117848 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.:
Page: 1CASE TITLE:GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK NA VS.CASE NUMBER: 34-2015-00185106-CU-CO-GDS
BILLFLOAT INC
who is entitled fo a change of venue as to one cause is entitled to a transfer of the entire action.”
(Jhirmack Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 96Cal. App. 3rd 715, 720; see also Ah Fong v.
Sternes (1889) 79 Cal. 30, 33). In a mixed action, a plaintiff alleges two or more causes of action each of
which is governed by a different venue statute or two or more defendants are named subject to different
venue standards. (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 477, 488). In such cases, venue must be
proper as to all causes of action and defendants joined, if not any defendant is entitled to seek a change
of venue usually to the county where the defendant resides. (Weil & Brown, supra.3-124-25).
This case is a mixed action. The Court finds that venue in the forum is not proper as to the Defendants,
as Plaintiffs cause of action for fraud is triable where all or some of the defendants reside. (Bybee v.
Fairchild (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 35, 37.) Accordingly, as Plaintiff concedes, Defendants are entitled to
transfer venue to the county in which some or all of the Defendants reside, which in this case is San
Francisco County. Accordingly, the motion to change venue will be granted.
This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a
hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument
must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 4:00 p.m. on the
day before the hearing.
Parties requesting a court reporter should contact the courtroom clerk at the number stated above.
Please be advised that there will be a $30.00 fee for court reporting services in civil proceedings lasting
under one hour. (Govt. Code §68086(a)(1)(A).)
Event ID: 2117848 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.:
Page: 2
Preview
WA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Jan-11-2016 9:47 am Case Number: CGC-16-549804 Filing Date: Jan-11-2016 9:46 Filed by: TJ MOROHOSHI Juke Box: 001 Image: 05227267 ORDER GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK, N.A. VS. BILLYFLOAT, INC. ET AL 001005227267 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.WEBB LEGAL GROUP (415) 277-7200 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Coe NA HW PF we Ny = yon N oN NN emis BNRRRPBRBBEHBSESGeTA DEBRA S y I ED Sen i aiwisCO Vvuti, superior Court WILLIAM T. WEBB #193832 JENNIFER D. YU'#291603 155 Montgomery Street, Suite eLz™! San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 277-7200 (415) 277-7210 (fax) Attorneys for BILLFLOAT, INC., RYAN GILBERT, and SEAN O’MALLEY Depuny Clerk SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO (Unlimited Jurisdiction) C6C*16- 549804 GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK, N.A., a National) Case No,: 34-201 5-00185106 Bank, . 4 . [PROPOSED/ORDER GRANTING ’ Plaintiff DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE v. Date: December 9, 2015 BILLFLOAT, INC., RYAN GILBERT, SEAN ) Time: 9:30 a.m. O’MALLEY, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Dept: 47 Defendants. * [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUEWEBB LEGAL GROUP (415) 277-7200 155 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94104 Co ent A WH FF YW DN NNN NY! Be Be eB Se Be es Be Se BNRRRRPBBRHEBSEFEWIABDBEBTHHS The motion of Defendants Billftoat, Inc., Ryan Gilbert and Sean O’Malley (herein “Defendants”) to change venue was set for hearing in Department 47 of this Court on December 9, 2015. Having read the motion, the memoranda and the declarations filed by the parties, and satisfactory evidence having been presented, we IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. This case shall be transferred to San Francisco County. Plaintiff shall pay transfer fees. pate: DEC 11 205 Honorable Robert C. Hight Judge of the Superior Court, County of Sacramento 1 {PROPOSED} ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO CHANGE VENUESUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 12/09/2015 TIME: 09:30:00 AM ‘DEPT: 47 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: Robert Hight . . 10da, K. Wells REPORTER/ERM: C60-16-849804 BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: CASE NO: 34-2015-00185106-CU-CO-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 10/02/2015 CASE TITLE: Golden Pacific Bank NA vs. Billfloat Inc CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: ,13105825 EVENT TYPE: Motion for Change of Venue - PJ Law and Motion MOVING PARTY: Ryan Gilbert, Billfloat Inc, Sean O'Malle CAUSAL DOCUMENTIDATE FILED: Motion for Change of Venue, 11/10/2015 APPEARANCES No Appearance by all parties Defendants BillFloat, Inc. ("BillFloat"), Ryan Gilbert ("Mr. Gilbert"), and Sean O'Malley's ("Mr, O'Malley") (collectively the "Defendants") motion to transfer venue to:San Francisco. County is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall pay transfer fees. Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED. However, the Court does not assume the truth of matters stated in court documents other than Orders. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep't of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121; Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113; 1 Witkin, Cal. Evid. (5th ed.) Judicial Notice, § 21 at p. 128 ["Judicial notice of the authenticity and contents H an official document does not establish the truth of all recitals therein") [collecting authorities]. Defendants assert that the instant action should have been brought as a cross-complaint in a related action filed by BillFloat in San Francisco in August 2015 ("San Francisco Action"), as both actions involve two of the same parties and arise from disputes regarding the same joint marketing agreement. Defendants further argue that venue is proper in San Francisco County and improper in Sacramento County because BillFloat's principal place of business is in San Francisco, Mr. O'Malley resided in San Francisco County when the complaint was filed, and Mr. Gilbert resided in Alameda County when the complaint was filed. Accordingly, two defendants have their place of residence in San Francisco County while no defendant resides in Sacramento County. Defendants further assert that venue is also proper in San Francisco County, and improper in Sacramento County, because the San Francisco Superior Court has already ruled that the relevant marketing agreement in these actions was formed in San Francisco. Defendants contend that, under the mixed-action venue rule, transfer to San Francisco County is mandatory, because Sacramento County is not the proper venue for Plaintiff's cause of action for fraud, while San Francisco County is proper. And because the cause of action for fraud is not properly brought in Sacramento, the entire case must be transferred. ‘ Plaintiff Golden Pacific Bank N.A. ("Plaintiff") has filed a non-opposition, conceding that venue is proper in San Francisco County and improper in Sacramento County under the mixed action rule. Plaintiff further states that it reserves the right to have the case re-transferred to Sacramento after all Defendants DATE: 12/09/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 47 Calendar No. 1CASE TITLE: Golden Pacific Bank NA vs. Billfloat Inc CASE NO: 34-2015-00185106-CU-CO-GDS have answered the complaint. As set forth in Jhirmack Enterprises, “when a complaint states multiple causes of action, a defendant who is entitled to a change of venue as to one cause is entitled to a transfer of the entire action." (Jhirmack Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 96Cal. App. 3rd 715, 720; see also Ah Fong v. Sternes (1889) 79 Cal. 30, 33). In a mixed action, a plaintiff alleges two or more causes of action each of which is governed by a different venue statute or two or more defendants are named subject to different venue standards. (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 477, 488). In such cases, venue must be proper as to all causes of action and defendants joined, if not any defendant is entitled to seek a change of venue usually to the county where the defendant resides. (Weil & Brown, supra.3-124-25). This case is a mixed action. The Court finds that venue in the forum is not proper as to the Defendants, as Plaintiffs cause of action for fraud is triable where all or some of the defendants reside. (Bybee v. Fairchild (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 35, 37.) Accordingly, as Plaintiff concedes, Defendants are entitled to transfer venue to the county in which some or all of the Defendants reside, which in this case is San Francisco County. Accordingly, the motion to change venue will be granted. This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Parties requesting a court reporter should contact the courtroom clerk at the number stated above. Please be advised that there will be a $30.00 fee for court reporting services in civil proceedings lasting under one hour. (Govt. Code §68086(a)(1)(A).) COURT'S RULING: The Tentative Ruling was accepted and no appearance was requested. The Court orders this matter be transferred to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco on payment of all the necessary fees required by law. The clerk of this court is authorized to transfer all the pleadings and papers herein to the clerk of the receiving court. DATE: 12/09/2015 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 47 Calendar No. 1SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO CIVIL TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 07, 2015 EVENT DATE: 12/09/2015 EVENT TIME: 09:30:00 AM DEPT.: 47 JUDICIAL OFFICER: CASENO.: —34-2015-00185106-CU-CO-GDS CASE TITLE: GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK NA VS. BILLFLOAT INC. CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Contract - Other Rae - EVENT TYPE: Motion for Change of Venue - PJ Law and Motion ¢ M C 16 5 4 9 8 na CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Change of Venue, 11/10/2015 Defendants BillFloat, Inc. ("BillFloat"), Ryan Gilbert ("Mr. Gilbert"), and Sean O'Malley's ("Mr. O'Malley") (collectively the "Defendants") motion to transfer venue to San Francisco County is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall pay transfer fees. Defendants' request for judicial notice is GRANTED. However, the Court does not assume the truth of matters stated in court documents other than Orders. In taking judicial notice of these documents, the Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep't of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121; Fremont Indem. Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113; 1 Witkin, Cal. Evid. (6th ed.) Judicial Notice, § 21 at p. 128 ["Judicial notice of the authenticity and contents f an official document does not establish the truth of all recitals therein"] [collecting authorities]. Defendants assert that the instant action should have been brought as a cross-complaint in a related action filed by BillFloat in San Francisco in August 2015 ("San Francisco Action"), as both actions involve two of the same parties and arise from disputes regarding the same joint marketing agreement. Defendants further argue that venue is proper in San Francisco County and improper in Sacramento County because BillFloat's principal place of business is in San Francisco, Mr. O'Malley resided in San Francisco County when the complaint was filed, and Mr. Gilbert resided in Alameda County when the complaint was filed. Accordingly, two defendants have their place of residence in San Francisco County while no _ defendant resides in Sacramento County. Defendants further assert that venue is also proper in San Francisco County, and improper in Sacramento County, because the San Francisco Superior Court has already ruled that the relevant marketing agreement in these actions was formed in San Francisco. Defendants contend that, under the mixed-action venue rule, transfer to San Francisco County is mandatory, because Sacramento County is not the proper venue for Plaintiff's cause of action for fraud, while San Francisco County is proper. And because the cause of action for fraud is not properly brought in Sacramento, the entire case must be transferred. Plaintiff Golden Pacific Bank N.A. ("Plaintiff") has filed a non-opposition, conceding that venue is proper in San Francisco County and improper in Sacramento County under the mixed action rule. Plaintiff further states that it reserves the right to have the case re-transferred to Sacramento after all Defendants have answered the complaint. As set forth in Jhirmack Enterprises, “when a complaint states multiple causes of action, a defendant Event ID: 2117848 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 1CASE TITLE:GOLDEN PACIFIC BANK NA VS.CASE NUMBER: 34-2015-00185106-CU-CO-GDS BILLFLOAT INC who is entitled fo a change of venue as to one cause is entitled to a transfer of the entire action.” (Jhirmack Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (1979) 96Cal. App. 3rd 715, 720; see also Ah Fong v. Sternes (1889) 79 Cal. 30, 33). In a mixed action, a plaintiff alleges two or more causes of action each of which is governed by a different venue statute or two or more defendants are named subject to different venue standards. (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 477, 488). In such cases, venue must be proper as to all causes of action and defendants joined, if not any defendant is entitled to seek a change of venue usually to the county where the defendant resides. (Weil & Brown, supra.3-124-25). This case is a mixed action. The Court finds that venue in the forum is not proper as to the Defendants, as Plaintiffs cause of action for fraud is triable where all or some of the defendants reside. (Bybee v. Fairchild (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 35, 37.) Accordingly, as Plaintiff concedes, Defendants are entitled to transfer venue to the county in which some or all of the Defendants reside, which in this case is San Francisco County. Accordingly, the motion to change venue will be granted. This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. Parties requesting a court reporter should contact the courtroom clerk at the number stated above. Please be advised that there will be a $30.00 fee for court reporting services in civil proceedings lasting under one hour. (Govt. Code §68086(a)(1)(A).) Event ID: 2117848 TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: Page: 2