Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE
MINUTE ORDER
DATE: 12/10/2019 TIME: 09:30:00 AM DEPT: 47
JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David De Alba
CLERK: N. Smith, P. Banks
REPORTER/ERM:
BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: O. Munoz
CASE NO: 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 08/16/2019
CASE TITLE: Robinson vs. Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC, a California
Corporation
CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited
EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: ,17837947
EVENT TYPE: Motion for Change of Venue - PJ Law and Motion
MOVING PARTY: Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation
CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Change of Venue, 11/06/2019
APPEARANCES
TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendants Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC's ("AERI") and Phillips & Jordan
Environmental Services, LLC ("Phillps & Jordan") (collectively "Defendants") joint motion to transfer
venue to Placer County is denied. As Phillips & Jordan has no residence in California, venue is proper
as to Phillips & Jordan in Sacramento County. AERI, a resident of Sutter County, cannot transfer venue
to Placer County on grounds that Sacramento County is an improper venue.
At the outset Plaintiffs Jay Robinson and Hugo Pineda ("Plaintiffs") request the Court deny the motion
based on Defendants' failure to comply with the requirement of Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.110(a) to state
the nature of and grounds for the order being sought in the opening paragraph of the motion. Here, the
notice sufficiently states the nature of the order being sought - an order transferring venue - and that the
grounds for such an order – that venue in Sacramento County is improper. Moreover, Plaintiffs have
waived any objection to defects in the notice by opposing the motion on its merits. (See Bohn v. Bohn
(1913) 164 Cal. 532, 538-530.)
The party seeking a transfer of venue has the burden of proving the action was filed in an improper
county and that the proposed venue is a proper county. (Mosby v. Superior Court (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d
219, 228.) Venue is generally proper in a county where at least one of the defendants resides at the
commencement of the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 395.) If none of the defendants resides in the state, the
action may be tried in any county. (Ibid; Thomas v. Placerville Gold Quartz Mining Co. (1884) 65 Cal.
600, 602.)
Limited liability companies and other unincorporated associations are not jural entities for purposes of
venue. (See Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's & Warhousemen's Union (1951) 37
Cal. 2d 760, 763.) Thus, pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 395, a limited liability company may generally
be sued in any county where at least one of its members reside. (Ibid; Buran Equip. Co. v. Superior
Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1662, 1665.) In order to meet its burden, a limited liability company must
produce evidence identifying each of its members and showing that none of its members resides in the
county where the action was commenced. (Carruth v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 215, 223.)
DATE: 12/10/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 1
DEPT: 47 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Robinson vs. Asomeo Environmental CASE NO: 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation
However, pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 395.2, if a limited liability company identifies a principal office
in California in its statement filed with the Secretary of State, the limited liability company will be treated
as a corporation for purposes of venue. (Buran Equip. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p.
1666.) If a limited liability company avails itself of Code of Civ. Proc. § 395.2, the limited liability
company's principal office in California determines its county of residence and the residency of its
members is ignored.
The evidence submitted by Defendants indicate that Phillips & Jordan's is a limited liability corporation.
(Declaration of Singh, Ex. C.) There is no evidence that Phillips & Jordan has designated a principal
office in California pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 395.2. Thus, Phillips & Jordan's residency is based
on the residency of its members. Phillips & Jordan has produced no evidence identifying its members
and their locations of residency. In the absence of sufficient evidence, it is presumed that the defendant
is actually a resident of the county where the suit was commenced. (Mosby v. Superior Court (1974) 43
Cal.App.3d 219, 230.) Further, where venue is proper based on the residency of an association, the
preference for residence is satisfied and no defendant may transfer venue to the county of his residence.
(Id. at p. 226.) Thus, the failure to prove Phillips & Jordan is not a resident of Sacramento County is fatal
to the motion as to both Phillips & Jordan and AERI.
Defendants have successfully demonstrated that AERI is not a resident of Sacramento County. AERI is
also a limited liability corporation. (Declaration of Singh, Ex. D.) However, AERI has designated an
address in Sutter County as its principal office in California. Thus, pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. §
395.2, for purposes of venue, AERI must be treated as a corporation with its principal place of business,
and therefore its residence, in Sutter County. (Code Civ. Proc. § 395.2; Hale v. Bohannon, supra, 38
Cal.2d at p. 478.)
Evidence submitted by Plaintiffs that AERI has and does do business in Sacramento County
(Declaration of Savage, Exhibits 1-3) is insufficient to support a finding that AERI is a resident of
Sacramento County. (Warren v. Ritter, supra, 61 Cal.App.2d at p. 406.) A domestic corporation's
designation of its principal place of business is conclusively fixed by the statement filed with the
Secretary of State. (Rosas v. Superior Court (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 671.) AERI has submitted filings with
the Secretary of State demonstrating that as of June 17, 2019, AERI's principal place of business, and
therefore its residency, is in Sutter County. (Declaration of Signh, Ex. D.) As AERI is treated as a
corporation for purposes of venue, its filing with the Secretary of State is conclusive that its principal
place of business is Sutter County.
Further, for purposes of venue, the relevant consideration is AERI's county of residence at the time the
action was commenced. (Code Civ. Proc. § 395.) Thus, the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs that AERI
previously had its principal place of business in Sacramento County (Declaration of Savage, Ex. 2) is
also insufficient to show venue is proper in Sacramento. This action was commenced on August 16,
2019. On that date, AERI had its principal place of business in Sutter County and was therefore a
resident of Sutter County.
However, the motion as to AERI must be denied because AERI requests a transfer to Placer County, not
to its county of residence. In seeking a transfer based on grounds that an action was filed in an improper
venue, a corporation may only transfer venue to its county of residence. (Beutke v. American Sec. Co.
(1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 354, 361.) There is no authority permitting transfer to some other county in which
the action could have been brought. (Ibid.) Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 395.2, AERI is treated as a
corporation for purposes of venue. As AERI seeks a transfer based on grounds that Sacramento County
is an improper venue, AERI may only request a transfer to Sutter County.
As the Defendants have failed to meet their initial burden, the Court will not consider the other
arguments raised by Plaintiffs that venue is proper in Sacramento County pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc.
DATE: 12/10/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 2
DEPT: 47 Calendar No.
CASE TITLE: Robinson vs. Asomeo Environmental CASE NO: 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS
Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation
§ 395.5.
The motion is denied without prejudice.
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 RULING:
The Tentative Ruling was accepted and no appearance was requested.
DATE: 12/10/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 3
DEPT: 47 Calendar No.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GORDON D SCHABER COURTHOUSE MINUTE ORDER DATE: 12/10/2019 TIME: 09:30:00 AM DEPT: 47 JUDICIAL OFFICER PRESIDING: David De Alba CLERK: N. Smith, P. Banks REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: O. Munoz CASE NO: 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS CASE INIT.DATE: 08/16/2019 CASE TITLE: Robinson vs. Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited EVENT ID/DOCUMENT ID: ,17837947 EVENT TYPE: Motion for Change of Venue - PJ Law and Motion MOVING PARTY: Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Change of Venue, 11/06/2019 APPEARANCES TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants Asomeo Environmental Restoration Industry, LLC's ("AERI") and Phillips & Jordan Environmental Services, LLC ("Phillps & Jordan") (collectively "Defendants") joint motion to transfer venue to Placer County is denied. As Phillips & Jordan has no residence in California, venue is proper as to Phillips & Jordan in Sacramento County. AERI, a resident of Sutter County, cannot transfer venue to Placer County on grounds that Sacramento County is an improper venue. At the outset Plaintiffs Jay Robinson and Hugo Pineda ("Plaintiffs") request the Court deny the motion based on Defendants' failure to comply with the requirement of Cal Rules of Court, rule 3.110(a) to state the nature of and grounds for the order being sought in the opening paragraph of the motion. Here, the notice sufficiently states the nature of the order being sought - an order transferring venue - and that the grounds for such an order – that venue in Sacramento County is improper. Moreover, Plaintiffs have waived any objection to defects in the notice by opposing the motion on its merits. (See Bohn v. Bohn (1913) 164 Cal. 532, 538-530.) The party seeking a transfer of venue has the burden of proving the action was filed in an improper county and that the proposed venue is a proper county. (Mosby v. Superior Court (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 219, 228.) Venue is generally proper in a county where at least one of the defendants resides at the commencement of the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 395.) If none of the defendants resides in the state, the action may be tried in any county. (Ibid; Thomas v. Placerville Gold Quartz Mining Co. (1884) 65 Cal. 600, 602.) Limited liability companies and other unincorporated associations are not jural entities for purposes of venue. (See Juneau Spruce Corp. v. International Longshoremen's & Warhousemen's Union (1951) 37 Cal. 2d 760, 763.) Thus, pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 395, a limited liability company may generally be sued in any county where at least one of its members reside. (Ibid; Buran Equip. Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1662, 1665.) In order to meet its burden, a limited liability company must produce evidence identifying each of its members and showing that none of its members resides in the county where the action was commenced. (Carruth v. Superior Court (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 215, 223.) DATE: 12/10/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 1 DEPT: 47 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Robinson vs. Asomeo Environmental CASE NO: 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation However, pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 395.2, if a limited liability company identifies a principal office in California in its statement filed with the Secretary of State, the limited liability company will be treated as a corporation for purposes of venue. (Buran Equip. Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 190 Cal.App.3d at p. 1666.) If a limited liability company avails itself of Code of Civ. Proc. § 395.2, the limited liability company's principal office in California determines its county of residence and the residency of its members is ignored. The evidence submitted by Defendants indicate that Phillips & Jordan's is a limited liability corporation. (Declaration of Singh, Ex. C.) There is no evidence that Phillips & Jordan has designated a principal office in California pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 395.2. Thus, Phillips & Jordan's residency is based on the residency of its members. Phillips & Jordan has produced no evidence identifying its members and their locations of residency. In the absence of sufficient evidence, it is presumed that the defendant is actually a resident of the county where the suit was commenced. (Mosby v. Superior Court (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 219, 230.) Further, where venue is proper based on the residency of an association, the preference for residence is satisfied and no defendant may transfer venue to the county of his residence. (Id. at p. 226.) Thus, the failure to prove Phillips & Jordan is not a resident of Sacramento County is fatal to the motion as to both Phillips & Jordan and AERI. Defendants have successfully demonstrated that AERI is not a resident of Sacramento County. AERI is also a limited liability corporation. (Declaration of Singh, Ex. D.) However, AERI has designated an address in Sutter County as its principal office in California. Thus, pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 395.2, for purposes of venue, AERI must be treated as a corporation with its principal place of business, and therefore its residence, in Sutter County. (Code Civ. Proc. § 395.2; Hale v. Bohannon, supra, 38 Cal.2d at p. 478.) Evidence submitted by Plaintiffs that AERI has and does do business in Sacramento County (Declaration of Savage, Exhibits 1-3) is insufficient to support a finding that AERI is a resident of Sacramento County. (Warren v. Ritter, supra, 61 Cal.App.2d at p. 406.) A domestic corporation's designation of its principal place of business is conclusively fixed by the statement filed with the Secretary of State. (Rosas v. Superior Court (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 671.) AERI has submitted filings with the Secretary of State demonstrating that as of June 17, 2019, AERI's principal place of business, and therefore its residency, is in Sutter County. (Declaration of Signh, Ex. D.) As AERI is treated as a corporation for purposes of venue, its filing with the Secretary of State is conclusive that its principal place of business is Sutter County. Further, for purposes of venue, the relevant consideration is AERI's county of residence at the time the action was commenced. (Code Civ. Proc. § 395.) Thus, the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs that AERI previously had its principal place of business in Sacramento County (Declaration of Savage, Ex. 2) is also insufficient to show venue is proper in Sacramento. This action was commenced on August 16, 2019. On that date, AERI had its principal place of business in Sutter County and was therefore a resident of Sutter County. However, the motion as to AERI must be denied because AERI requests a transfer to Placer County, not to its county of residence. In seeking a transfer based on grounds that an action was filed in an improper venue, a corporation may only transfer venue to its county of residence. (Beutke v. American Sec. Co. (1955) 132 Cal.App.2d 354, 361.) There is no authority permitting transfer to some other county in which the action could have been brought. (Ibid.) Pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. § 395.2, AERI is treated as a corporation for purposes of venue. As AERI seeks a transfer based on grounds that Sacramento County is an improper venue, AERI may only request a transfer to Sutter County. As the Defendants have failed to meet their initial burden, the Court will not consider the other arguments raised by Plaintiffs that venue is proper in Sacramento County pursuant to Code of Civ. Proc. DATE: 12/10/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 2 DEPT: 47 Calendar No. CASE TITLE: Robinson vs. Asomeo Environmental CASE NO: 34-2019-00262942-CU-OE-GDS Restoration Industry, LLC, a California Corporation § 395.5. The motion is denied without prejudice. 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 RULING: The Tentative Ruling was accepted and no appearance was requested. DATE: 12/10/2019 MINUTE ORDER Page 3 DEPT: 47 Calendar No.