Preview
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
FILED/ENDORSED
SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733
2 E-Mail: Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com NOV - 6 2019
2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700
3 Sacramento, Califomia 95833 By: M. Rubalcaba
Telephone: 916.564.5400 Deputy ClerK
4 Facsimile: 916.564.5444
5 Attomeys for Defendant Asomeo Environmental
Restoration Industry, LLC
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
10
11 JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
individually and on behalf of all others
12 similarly situated, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
13 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER
14 vs. COUNTY
15 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL Date: December 10, 2019
RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a Time: 9:30 a.m. -IH
16 Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS & Dept.: 47
JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
17 LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10, Action Filed: August 16,2019
Trial Date: None Set
18 Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BRISBOIS 1
BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
ftSMIHUP SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY
AHORNEYSATLAW
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 This is a putative class action and Califomia Labor Code Private Attomey General Act
3 ("PAGA") law enforcement representative action arising out of allegedly unlawful wage payment
4 and employment practices. Jay Robinson and Hugo Pineda (collectively "Plaintiffs") assert that
5 Defendants Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC ("AERI") and Phillips & Jordan
6 Environmental Services, LLC ("Phillips & Jordan") were contracted to perform restoration and
7 clean-up services in relation to the Camp Fire of November 8, 2018. [A true and correct copy of
8 the "Complaint" is attached to the Declaration of Shane Singh in support of this Motion ("Singh
9 Decl.") as Exhibit A, If 10]. Plaintiffs allege twelve causes of action: (1) violation of the PAGA;
10 (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to pay minimum wages; (4) failure to provide meal periods
11 or premium pay; (5) failure to provide rest periods or premium pay; (6) failure to pay final wages;
12 (7) failure to fumish accurate wage statements; (8) failure to pay reimbursement expenses; (9)
13 violation of Labor Code section 558; (10) failure to keep accurate time records; (11) solicitation of
14 employees by misrepresentation; and (12) unfair competition. [Complaint (Ex. A)].
15 PlaintifTs further assert that jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento
16 County because Defendant Phillips & Jordan transacts business in the County of Sacramento,
17 operates its Regional Office in the County of Sacramento, and entered into a contract with
18 Defendant AERI in the County of Sacramento for the restoration and clean-up associated with the
19 Camp Fire. [Complaint (Ex. A), If 12]. Plaintiffs also assert that jurisdiction is proper because
20 Defendants' alleged non-payment of wages had a direct effect on employees of Defendants in the
21 State of Califomia, and in particular, within the County of Sacramento. [Complaint (Ex. A), 112].
22 As explained below, none of the statutorily prescribed grounds exist which would
23 authorize the trial of this action in the Superior Court of Sacramento County. Accordingly, this
24 Court should transfer this matter to the Superior Court of Placer County, where venue is proper.
25 H. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
26 Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Phillips & Jordan was a direct contractor and Defendant
27 AERI was a subcontractor and that both were contracted to perform restoration and clean-up
28 services in relation to the Camp Fire of November 8, 2018. [Complaint (Ex. A), Tf 10]. To
LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1 2 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
&S^^11P SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY
AHORNEYS AT LAW
1 perform these services, Plaintiff Robinson alleges that a recruiter from Defendant AERI first
2 contacted him in mid-November 2018. [A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Robinson's "Notice"
3 filed with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency is attached to the Singh Decl. as Exhibit
4 B, pg. 1]. Plaintiff Robinson was allegedly told that there would be two sessions, training and
5 orientation, after which Plaintiff Robinson would begin working immediately. Id.
6 Plaintiff Robinson allegedly traveled to and from Califomia on several occasions in the
7 hopes of obtaining full-time work with Defendant AERI. Id. Plaintiff Robinson alleges that he
8 completed training and orientation with Defendant AERI on December 19, 2018. Id. Thereafter,
9 Plaintiff Robinson was allegedly sent home and told to retum to Aubum, Califomia, on January 6,
10 2019. Id
11 Defendants allegedly sent Plaintiff Robinson to a site called "Man Camp" somewhere
12 between Chico, Califomia and Red Bluff, Califomia on or about January 7, 2019. Id. Plaintiff
13 Robinson alleges that he arrived for work at "Man Camp" on January 7, 8, and 9, and was told
14 each time that work was not ready for him. Id. Plaintiff Robinson alleges that he never received
15 pay for these dates. Id.
16 Defendant AERI allegedly contacted Plaintiff Robinson on or about January 25, 2019 and
17 asked him to come back to Califomia for full time work. Id. Plaintiff Robinson allegedly arrived
18 in Califomia on January 28, 2019 for work and performed his first full day of work on or about
19 January 29, 2019. Id. Plaintiff Robinson alleges that he worked until January 31, 2019, but that
20 he never received afinalpaycheck for the hours worked. Id.
21 In sum, none of Plaintiffs' allegations concem the County of Sacramento. [Complaint (Ex.
22 A); Notice (Ex. B)]. All of Plaintiffs' allegations stem from Defendants' acts or omissions outside
23 of the County of Sacramento. [Complaint (Ex. A); Notice (Ex. B)]. The operative facts giving
24 rise to the instant case occurred in the County of Placer. [Declaration of Lawrence J. Kahn in
25 support of this Motion ("Kahn Decl."), H 1-19].
26 HI. LEGAL STANDARD
27 This Court is empowered to transfer venue. Califomia Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") §
28 397. If it appears at the hearing of the motion for change of venue that the action was not
LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1 3 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
&SM1H11P SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY
AHOrasETO AT LAW
1 commenced in the proper court, a court must order the action to be transferred to the proper court.
2 CCP § 396b. A corporation or association may be sued where the contract is made or is to be
3 performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where
4 the principal place of business of such corporation is situated. CCP § 395.5. If an unincorporated
5 association has filed a statement with the Secretary of State pursuant to statute, designating its
6 principal office in this state, the proper county for the trial of an action against the unincorporated
7 association is the same as it would be if the unincorporated association were a corporation and, for
8 the purpose of determining the proper county, the principal place of business of the unincorporated
9 association shall be deemed to be the principal office in this state listed in the statement. CCP §
10 395.2.
11 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT
12 A. Defendant Phillips & Jordan's Principal Place of Business Is Not in the
County of Sacramento.
13
14 Plaintiffsfirstclaim that venue is proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento County
15 because Defendant Phillips & Jordan transacts business in the County of Sacramento and operates
16 its Regional Office in the County of Sacramento. [Complaint (Ex. A), ^ 13]. Transacting business
17 and operating a Regional Office in the County of Sacramento does not mean that Defendant
18 Phillips & Jordan has its principal place of business in the County of Sacramento. In actuality,
19 Defendant Phillips & Jordan is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of
20 business in Knoxville, Tennessee. [A tme and correct copy of the "Secretary of State Statement of
21 Information for Phillips & Jordan Environmental Services, LLC" is attached to the Singh Decl. as
22 Exhibit C]. Defendant Phillips & Jordan has filed a Statement of Information with the Secretary
23 of State clearly designating its principal office and, therefore, principal place of business in
24 Knoxville, Tennessee. Id. For these reasons, Plaintiffs' argument that venue is proper in the
25 Superior Court of Sacramento County because Defendant Phillips & Jordan transacts business in
26 the County of Sacramento is without merit.
27 / / /
28 III
LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1
BRISBOIS 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
&S)^LLP SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY
Ana?r€vs AT LAW
1 B. Defendant AERI's Principal Place of Business Is Not in the County of
Sacramento.
2
3 While not specifically alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs may argue that venue is
4 proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento County because Defendant AERI also transacts
5 business in the County of Sacramento. As above, transacting business in the County of
6 Sacramento does not mean that Defendant AERI has its principal place of business in the County
7 of Sacramento. Defendant AERI is a limited liability corporation with its principal place of
8 business in the County of Sutter. [A tme and correct copy of the "Secretary of State Statement of
9 Information for Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC" is attached to the Singh Decl.
10 as Exhibit D]. Therefore, any argument that venue is proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento
11 County because Defendant AERI transacts business in the County of Sacramento is likewise
12 unavailing.
13 C. Any Contract Entered Into Between Defendants In The County Of
Sacramento Is Not A Statutorily Prescribed Ground Which Would
14 Authorize The Trial Of This Action In The Superior Court Of
Sacramento County.
15
16 Plaintiffs next argue that venue is proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento County
17 because Defendants entered into a contract in the County of Sacramento for the restoration and
18 clean-up associated with the Camp Fire. [Complaint (Ex. A), Tf 13]. Plaintiffs, however, were not
19 parties to this alleged contract between Defendants, and none of Plaintiffs' twelve causes of action
20 are based on a breach of contract theory. Further, any alleged contract between Plaintiffs and
21 Defendants was made, performed, or breached in the County of Placer, not in the County of
22 Sacramento. [Notice (Ex. B), pgs. 1-2; Kahn Decl.]. In short. Plaintiffs can point to no contract
23 between PlaintifTs and Defendants that would authorize the trial of this action in the Superior
24 Court of Sacramento County.
25 D. The Non-Payment Of Wages Allegedly Having A Direct Effect On
Employees In The County Of Sacramento Is Not A Statutorily
26 Prescribed Ground Which Would Authorize The Trial Of This Action
In The Superior Court Of Sacramento County.
27
28 Finally, Plaintiffs argue that venue is proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento County
LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1 5 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
&SMIHL1P SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY
AnORNEW AT LAW
1 because the alleged non-payment of wages had a direct effect on employees of Defendants in the
2 State of Califomia, and in particular, within the County of Sacramento. [Complaint (Ex. A), Tf 13].
3 Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5 makes plain that a corporation or association may be sued
4 where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the
5 breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is
6 situated. Simply put. Plaintiffs' allegation is irrelevant because it does not address any of these
7 statutory grounds regarding proper venue. In Sea World, Inc. v. Superior Court, the Court of
8 Appeal found that subsequent circumstances affecting the plaintiff in the County of Los Angeles
9 did not make that County a proper venue, when it was "clear that the alleged tortious conduct
10 occurred in San Diego County and that petitioner's liability arose there." Sea World, Inc. v.
11 Superior Court, 13 Cal. App. 3d 100, 105 (1970). Thus, the Court of Appeal rejected the
12 argument that venue is proper where the defendant's conduct has a direct effect. Id. Plaintiffs
13 make a similar argument in this case, which this Court should reject.
14 While Plaintiffs allege the non-payment of wages had a "direct effect on employees" in the
15 County of Sacramento, they do not allege that the County of Sacramento is where any contract
16 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was made or performed, where any obligation or liability arose,
17 or where any breach occurred. [Complaint (Ex. A), Tf 13]. Accordingly, the alleged non-payment
18 of wages having a "direct effect on employees" in the County of Sacramento does not make venue
19 proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento County.
20 E. Venue Should Be Transferred From The Superior Court Of
Sacramento County To The Proper Venue In The Superior Court Of
21 Placer County.
22 Now that Defendants' principal places of business have been properly identified, a change
23 of venue to the Superior Court of Placer County naturally follows. A corporation or association
24 may be sued where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability
25 arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such
26 corporation is situated. CCP § 395.5. As discussed, the parties' obligations and Defendants'
27 liabilities arose in the County of Placer. The County of Placer has the most substantial interest in
28 having this action tried in its Superior Court. There is no legal basis to retain this matter in the
LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1 g 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BRISBOIS
BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
&S^/^HL1P SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY
AHOWEVS AT LAW
1 County of Sacramento. Neither Defendant has its principal place of business in the County of
2 Sacramento nor do none of Plaintiffs' allegations concem facts or liabilities that arose in the
3 County of Sacramento. The County of Sacramento has zero interest in retaining this action.
4 Califomia law and the ends of justice dictate that this Court should transfer the case to the proper
5 venue in the Superior Court of Placer County.
6 V. CONCLUSION
7 This case belongs in the Superior Court of Placer County. Plaintiffs' case centers on the
8 County of Placer. Defendants' alleged liabilities arose out of actions that purportedly occurred in
9 the County of Placer. Plaintiffs' claimed injuries and damages were incurred in the County of
10 Placer. There is no basis for jurisdiction in the County of Sacramento and therefore venue in the
11 Superior Court of Sacramento County is improper. Defendant AERI respectfully requests the
12 Court to transfer the present case to the Superior Court of Placer County, where Plaintiffs' alleged
13 damages were incurred and Defendants' liabilities arose.
14 DATED: November 6, 2019 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
15
16
17 By:
18 Shane Singh
Attomeys for Defendant Asomeo Environmental
19 Restoration Industry, LLC
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
LEWIS 28
BRISBOIS 4852-7918-3272.1 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
&S^/IIHLiP SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY
AnOWCYS AT LAW
Preview
1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP FILED/ENDORSED SHANE SINGH, SB# 202733 2 E-Mail: Shane.Singh@lewisbrisbois.com NOV - 6 2019 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 700 3 Sacramento, Califomia 95833 By: M. Rubalcaba Telephone: 916.564.5400 Deputy ClerK 4 Facsimile: 916.564.5444 5 Attomeys for Defendant Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 10 11 JAY ROBINSON and HUGO PINEDA, CASE NO. 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS individually and on behalf of all others 12 similarly situated, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 13 Plaintiffs, MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER 14 vs. COUNTY 15 ASOMEO ENVIRONMENTAL Date: December 10, 2019 RESTORATION INDUSTRY, LLC, a Time: 9:30 a.m. -IH 16 Califomia Corporation and PHILLIPS & Dept.: 47 JORDAN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 17 LLC, a Delaware Corporation and DOES 1-10, Action Filed: August 16,2019 Trial Date: None Set 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BRISBOIS 1 BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE ftSMIHUP SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY AHORNEYSATLAW 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 This is a putative class action and Califomia Labor Code Private Attomey General Act 3 ("PAGA") law enforcement representative action arising out of allegedly unlawful wage payment 4 and employment practices. Jay Robinson and Hugo Pineda (collectively "Plaintiffs") assert that 5 Defendants Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC ("AERI") and Phillips & Jordan 6 Environmental Services, LLC ("Phillips & Jordan") were contracted to perform restoration and 7 clean-up services in relation to the Camp Fire of November 8, 2018. [A true and correct copy of 8 the "Complaint" is attached to the Declaration of Shane Singh in support of this Motion ("Singh 9 Decl.") as Exhibit A, If 10]. Plaintiffs allege twelve causes of action: (1) violation of the PAGA; 10 (2) failure to pay overtime; (3) failure to pay minimum wages; (4) failure to provide meal periods 11 or premium pay; (5) failure to provide rest periods or premium pay; (6) failure to pay final wages; 12 (7) failure to fumish accurate wage statements; (8) failure to pay reimbursement expenses; (9) 13 violation of Labor Code section 558; (10) failure to keep accurate time records; (11) solicitation of 14 employees by misrepresentation; and (12) unfair competition. [Complaint (Ex. A)]. 15 PlaintifTs further assert that jurisdiction is proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento 16 County because Defendant Phillips & Jordan transacts business in the County of Sacramento, 17 operates its Regional Office in the County of Sacramento, and entered into a contract with 18 Defendant AERI in the County of Sacramento for the restoration and clean-up associated with the 19 Camp Fire. [Complaint (Ex. A), If 12]. Plaintiffs also assert that jurisdiction is proper because 20 Defendants' alleged non-payment of wages had a direct effect on employees of Defendants in the 21 State of Califomia, and in particular, within the County of Sacramento. [Complaint (Ex. A), 112]. 22 As explained below, none of the statutorily prescribed grounds exist which would 23 authorize the trial of this action in the Superior Court of Sacramento County. Accordingly, this 24 Court should transfer this matter to the Superior Court of Placer County, where venue is proper. 25 H. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 26 Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Phillips & Jordan was a direct contractor and Defendant 27 AERI was a subcontractor and that both were contracted to perform restoration and clean-up 28 services in relation to the Camp Fire of November 8, 2018. [Complaint (Ex. A), Tf 10]. To LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1 2 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BRISBOIS BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE &S^^11P SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY AHORNEYS AT LAW 1 perform these services, Plaintiff Robinson alleges that a recruiter from Defendant AERI first 2 contacted him in mid-November 2018. [A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Robinson's "Notice" 3 filed with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency is attached to the Singh Decl. as Exhibit 4 B, pg. 1]. Plaintiff Robinson was allegedly told that there would be two sessions, training and 5 orientation, after which Plaintiff Robinson would begin working immediately. Id. 6 Plaintiff Robinson allegedly traveled to and from Califomia on several occasions in the 7 hopes of obtaining full-time work with Defendant AERI. Id. Plaintiff Robinson alleges that he 8 completed training and orientation with Defendant AERI on December 19, 2018. Id. Thereafter, 9 Plaintiff Robinson was allegedly sent home and told to retum to Aubum, Califomia, on January 6, 10 2019. Id 11 Defendants allegedly sent Plaintiff Robinson to a site called "Man Camp" somewhere 12 between Chico, Califomia and Red Bluff, Califomia on or about January 7, 2019. Id. Plaintiff 13 Robinson alleges that he arrived for work at "Man Camp" on January 7, 8, and 9, and was told 14 each time that work was not ready for him. Id. Plaintiff Robinson alleges that he never received 15 pay for these dates. Id. 16 Defendant AERI allegedly contacted Plaintiff Robinson on or about January 25, 2019 and 17 asked him to come back to Califomia for full time work. Id. Plaintiff Robinson allegedly arrived 18 in Califomia on January 28, 2019 for work and performed his first full day of work on or about 19 January 29, 2019. Id. Plaintiff Robinson alleges that he worked until January 31, 2019, but that 20 he never received afinalpaycheck for the hours worked. Id. 21 In sum, none of Plaintiffs' allegations concem the County of Sacramento. [Complaint (Ex. 22 A); Notice (Ex. B)]. All of Plaintiffs' allegations stem from Defendants' acts or omissions outside 23 of the County of Sacramento. [Complaint (Ex. A); Notice (Ex. B)]. The operative facts giving 24 rise to the instant case occurred in the County of Placer. [Declaration of Lawrence J. Kahn in 25 support of this Motion ("Kahn Decl."), H 1-19]. 26 HI. LEGAL STANDARD 27 This Court is empowered to transfer venue. Califomia Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") § 28 397. If it appears at the hearing of the motion for change of venue that the action was not LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1 3 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BRISBOIS BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE &SM1H11P SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY AHOrasETO AT LAW 1 commenced in the proper court, a court must order the action to be transferred to the proper court. 2 CCP § 396b. A corporation or association may be sued where the contract is made or is to be 3 performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where 4 the principal place of business of such corporation is situated. CCP § 395.5. If an unincorporated 5 association has filed a statement with the Secretary of State pursuant to statute, designating its 6 principal office in this state, the proper county for the trial of an action against the unincorporated 7 association is the same as it would be if the unincorporated association were a corporation and, for 8 the purpose of determining the proper county, the principal place of business of the unincorporated 9 association shall be deemed to be the principal office in this state listed in the statement. CCP § 10 395.2. 11 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT 12 A. Defendant Phillips & Jordan's Principal Place of Business Is Not in the County of Sacramento. 13 14 Plaintiffsfirstclaim that venue is proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento County 15 because Defendant Phillips & Jordan transacts business in the County of Sacramento and operates 16 its Regional Office in the County of Sacramento. [Complaint (Ex. A), ^ 13]. Transacting business 17 and operating a Regional Office in the County of Sacramento does not mean that Defendant 18 Phillips & Jordan has its principal place of business in the County of Sacramento. In actuality, 19 Defendant Phillips & Jordan is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of 20 business in Knoxville, Tennessee. [A tme and correct copy of the "Secretary of State Statement of 21 Information for Phillips & Jordan Environmental Services, LLC" is attached to the Singh Decl. as 22 Exhibit C]. Defendant Phillips & Jordan has filed a Statement of Information with the Secretary 23 of State clearly designating its principal office and, therefore, principal place of business in 24 Knoxville, Tennessee. Id. For these reasons, Plaintiffs' argument that venue is proper in the 25 Superior Court of Sacramento County because Defendant Phillips & Jordan transacts business in 26 the County of Sacramento is without merit. 27 / / / 28 III LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1 BRISBOIS 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE &S)^LLP SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY Ana?r€vs AT LAW 1 B. Defendant AERI's Principal Place of Business Is Not in the County of Sacramento. 2 3 While not specifically alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs may argue that venue is 4 proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento County because Defendant AERI also transacts 5 business in the County of Sacramento. As above, transacting business in the County of 6 Sacramento does not mean that Defendant AERI has its principal place of business in the County 7 of Sacramento. Defendant AERI is a limited liability corporation with its principal place of 8 business in the County of Sutter. [A tme and correct copy of the "Secretary of State Statement of 9 Information for Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC" is attached to the Singh Decl. 10 as Exhibit D]. Therefore, any argument that venue is proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento 11 County because Defendant AERI transacts business in the County of Sacramento is likewise 12 unavailing. 13 C. Any Contract Entered Into Between Defendants In The County Of Sacramento Is Not A Statutorily Prescribed Ground Which Would 14 Authorize The Trial Of This Action In The Superior Court Of Sacramento County. 15 16 Plaintiffs next argue that venue is proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento County 17 because Defendants entered into a contract in the County of Sacramento for the restoration and 18 clean-up associated with the Camp Fire. [Complaint (Ex. A), Tf 13]. Plaintiffs, however, were not 19 parties to this alleged contract between Defendants, and none of Plaintiffs' twelve causes of action 20 are based on a breach of contract theory. Further, any alleged contract between Plaintiffs and 21 Defendants was made, performed, or breached in the County of Placer, not in the County of 22 Sacramento. [Notice (Ex. B), pgs. 1-2; Kahn Decl.]. In short. Plaintiffs can point to no contract 23 between PlaintifTs and Defendants that would authorize the trial of this action in the Superior 24 Court of Sacramento County. 25 D. The Non-Payment Of Wages Allegedly Having A Direct Effect On Employees In The County Of Sacramento Is Not A Statutorily 26 Prescribed Ground Which Would Authorize The Trial Of This Action In The Superior Court Of Sacramento County. 27 28 Finally, Plaintiffs argue that venue is proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento County LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1 5 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BRISBOIS BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE &SMIHL1P SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY AnORNEW AT LAW 1 because the alleged non-payment of wages had a direct effect on employees of Defendants in the 2 State of Califomia, and in particular, within the County of Sacramento. [Complaint (Ex. A), Tf 13]. 3 Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5 makes plain that a corporation or association may be sued 4 where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the 5 breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is 6 situated. Simply put. Plaintiffs' allegation is irrelevant because it does not address any of these 7 statutory grounds regarding proper venue. In Sea World, Inc. v. Superior Court, the Court of 8 Appeal found that subsequent circumstances affecting the plaintiff in the County of Los Angeles 9 did not make that County a proper venue, when it was "clear that the alleged tortious conduct 10 occurred in San Diego County and that petitioner's liability arose there." Sea World, Inc. v. 11 Superior Court, 13 Cal. App. 3d 100, 105 (1970). Thus, the Court of Appeal rejected the 12 argument that venue is proper where the defendant's conduct has a direct effect. Id. Plaintiffs 13 make a similar argument in this case, which this Court should reject. 14 While Plaintiffs allege the non-payment of wages had a "direct effect on employees" in the 15 County of Sacramento, they do not allege that the County of Sacramento is where any contract 16 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was made or performed, where any obligation or liability arose, 17 or where any breach occurred. [Complaint (Ex. A), Tf 13]. Accordingly, the alleged non-payment 18 of wages having a "direct effect on employees" in the County of Sacramento does not make venue 19 proper in the Superior Court of Sacramento County. 20 E. Venue Should Be Transferred From The Superior Court Of Sacramento County To The Proper Venue In The Superior Court Of 21 Placer County. 22 Now that Defendants' principal places of business have been properly identified, a change 23 of venue to the Superior Court of Placer County naturally follows. A corporation or association 24 may be sued where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability 25 arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such 26 corporation is situated. CCP § 395.5. As discussed, the parties' obligations and Defendants' 27 liabilities arose in the County of Placer. The County of Placer has the most substantial interest in 28 having this action tried in its Superior Court. There is no legal basis to retain this matter in the LEWIS 4852-7918-3272.1 g 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BRISBOIS BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE &S^/^HL1P SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY AHOWEVS AT LAW 1 County of Sacramento. Neither Defendant has its principal place of business in the County of 2 Sacramento nor do none of Plaintiffs' allegations concem facts or liabilities that arose in the 3 County of Sacramento. The County of Sacramento has zero interest in retaining this action. 4 Califomia law and the ends of justice dictate that this Court should transfer the case to the proper 5 venue in the Superior Court of Placer County. 6 V. CONCLUSION 7 This case belongs in the Superior Court of Placer County. Plaintiffs' case centers on the 8 County of Placer. Defendants' alleged liabilities arose out of actions that purportedly occurred in 9 the County of Placer. Plaintiffs' claimed injuries and damages were incurred in the County of 10 Placer. There is no basis for jurisdiction in the County of Sacramento and therefore venue in the 11 Superior Court of Sacramento County is improper. Defendant AERI respectfully requests the 12 Court to transfer the present case to the Superior Court of Placer County, where Plaintiffs' alleged 13 damages were incurred and Defendants' liabilities arose. 14 DATED: November 6, 2019 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 15 16 17 By: 18 Shane Singh Attomeys for Defendant Asomeo Environmental 19 Restoration Industry, LLC 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 LEWIS 28 BRISBOIS 4852-7918-3272.1 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS BISGAARD MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE &S^/IIHLiP SUPERIOR COURT OF PLACER COUNTY AnOWCYS AT LAW