Motion for Change of Venue in **TRANSFERRED TO SOMONA CO.** JANE DOE ET AL VS. AIRBNB, INC| Trellis.Law

On January 22, 2020 a Motion-Secondary was filed involving a dispute between Doe, Jane, Roe, Jane, and Airbnb, Inc, Anderson, Cathryn, Anderson, Stanley, Does 1 To 20, Inclusive, for WRONGFUL EVICTION in the District Court of San Francisco County.

Preview
1 Michael M. Astanehe, SBN 312965
ASTANEHE LAW
2 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400 ELECTRONICALLY

3 San Francisco, California 94105 F I L E D
Phone: (415) 226-7170 | Fax: (415) 462-1732 Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
4 Email: mastanehe@astanehelaw.com
06/12/2020
Clerk of the Court
5 BY: RONNIE OTERO
Deputy Clerk
6 Attorney for Plaintiffs
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
10 UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11
12 JANE DOE; et al., Case No.: CGC-20-582389
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170

PlaintiffS,
ASTANEHE LAW

13
14 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
v.
d

IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ANDERSON’S
15 MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE
AIRBNB, INC.; et al.,
16 Defendants.
HEARING DATE: June 25, 2020
17 HEARING TIME: 9:30 a.m.
HEARING JUDGE: Hon. Haines
18 DEPT NO.: 501
19
20 DATE ACTION FILED: January 22, 2020

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ANDERSON’S
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – i
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 Page

3 I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………………………… 1

4 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………………………………………… 1

5 III. THE COURT MUST DENY A VENUE TRANSFER MOTION WHEN PLAINTIFF SELECTS
VENUE IN A COUNTY WHERE AT LEAST ONE DEFENDANT RESIDES AT THE
6 COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION ……………………………………………………... 2
7 A. PLAINTIFFS COMMENCED THE ACTION IN DEFENDANT AIRBNB’S NERVE CENTER
COUNTY …………………………………………………………………………….. 3
8
B. EVEN THOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS RESIDE ELSEWHERE, VENUE IS PROPER IN
9 A CORPORATE DEFENDANT’S NERVE CENTER COUNTY ………………………….. 4
10 C. WHEN ONE DEFENDANT RESIDES HERE, DEFENDANTS CANNOT TRANSFER THIS
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

PROPERLY VENUED OUT OF PREFERENCE FOR ANOTHER COUNTY ..................... 5
11
D. DEFENDANT’S LACK A CONTROLLING OPTION TO COMPEL TRANSFER TO ANY
12
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170

INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANT’S COUNTY OF RESIDENCE BECAUSE AT LEAST ONE
ASTANEHE LAW

13 DEFENDANT RESIDES IN SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY ……………………………….. 6
E. SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY IS THE PROPER VENUE FOR PLAINTIFFS’ FEHA CLAIM . 8
14
d

F. PROPER VENUE IN CONTRACT CLAIMS IS WHERE PERFORMANCE IS REQUIRED … 8
15
IV. THE COURT MUST SANCTION DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR BAD FAITH MOTION …….. 9
16
V. CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………... 10
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ANDERSON’S
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – ii
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Cases Page(s)

3 Black Diamond Asphalt, Inc. v. Superior Court,
109 Cal. App. 4th 166 (2003) ………………………………………………………… 3
4
Brown v. Superior Court,
5 37 Cal. 3d 477 (1984) ………………………………………………………………… 8
6 Buran Equip. Co. v. Sup. Ct.,
7 190 Cal. App. 3d 1662 (1987) ………………………………………….. 1, 4, 6, 7, 10

8 Carruth v. Superior Court,
80 Cal. App. 3d 215 (1978) ………………………………………………... 4, 6, 7, 10
9
Chase v. South P.C.R. Co.,
10 83 Cal. 468 (1890) …………………………………………………………………….. 3
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11 Greenleaf v. Jack,
135 Cal. 154 (1901) ………………………………………………………………... 5, 6
12
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170

Hale v. Bohannon,
ASTANEHE LAW

13 38 Cal. 2d 458 (1952) ……………………………………………………………… 4, 8
14 Hertz Corp. v. Friend,
d

15 559 U.S. 77 (2010) ……………………………………………………………………. 2

16 Independent Iron Wks. v. Amer. Pres. Lines, Ltd.,
35 Cal. 2d 858 (1950) ………………………………………………………………… 4
17
Jenkins v. The California Stage Co.,
18 22 Cal. 537 (1863) …………………………………………………………………. 2, 4
19 Mosby v. Superior Court,
43 Cal. App. 3d 219 (1974) …………………………………………………………... 7
20
Taff v. Goodman,
21 41 Cal. App. 2d 771, 776 (1940) …………………………………………………….. 3
22 White v. Anderson,
23 50 Cal. App. 2d 634 (1942) …………………………………………………………... 4

24
25
26
27
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ANDERSON’S
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – iii
1
2 Statutes Page(s)

3 California Code of Civil Procedure § 395 …………………………………………...2, 4, 5, 8

4 California Code of Civil Procedure § 395.5 …………………………………………... 2, 6, 8

5 California Code of Civil Procedure § 396b ………………………………………………. 3, 9

6 California Code of Civil Procedure § 397(a) ……………………………………………….. 3

7 California Government Code § 12965 ……………………………………………………… 8

8
9
10 Other Authorities Page(s)
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11 3 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Actions § 902 (2008) ……………………………………………… 4

12
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170
ASTANEHE LAW

13
14
d

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ANDERSON’S
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – iv
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES

2 I. INTRODUCTION

3 Within days of moving in, Plaintiffs were forced out of their new rental home after

4 Defendant AIRBNB, INC. failed to respond adequately and prohibit ongoing retaliation,

5 harassment, discrimination perpetrated by landlord-Defendant STANLEY ANDERSON,

6 which he commenced after discovering Plaintiffs were a lesbian couple. Ultimately,

7 Plaintiffs were forced to flee Defendants’ abuse and prematurely terminate their

8 tenancy. Amid Defendant ANDERSON’S damaging harassment, Plaintiffs regularly

9 communicated with Defendant AIRBNB, INC., who maintained a log and responded,

10 albeit inadequately.
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11 After escaping Defendant ANDERSON’S ongoing bullying, Plaintiffs filed the

12 instant action in San Francisco County, which is Defendant AIRBNB, INC.’S county of
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170
ASTANEHE LAW

13 residence. Because Defendant AIRBNB, INC. maintains its nerve center here, San

14 Francisco County was the proper venue when Plaintiffs commenced the action.
d

15 Despite Plaintiffs properly venuing the action in San Francisco County,

16 Defendants move on a string of flawed grounds, including an inapplicable narrow

17 exception to the fundamental rule providing venue is proper for actions naming

18 corporate and individual defendants where it is correct as to any defendant. Buran

19 Equip. Co. v. Sup. Ct., 190 Cal. App. 3d 1662, 1666 (1987). None of the authority

20 Defendants cite obviates this rule. Stunningly, Defendants even undermine their

21 position by admitting Plaintiffs commenced the action in the appropriate venue. As

22 Defendants fail to provide facts or authority showing venue is not proper in San

23 Francisco County, the Court must deny this motion to transfer venue.

24 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

25 Plaintiffs filed the instant action after Defendant AIRBNB, INC. failed to respond
26 adequately to Defendant ANDERSON’S harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
27 based on Plaintiffs’ gender, sex, sexual orientation, and sexuality. Complaint ¶ 46.
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANDERSONS’
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – 1
1 Defendant ANDERSON, an individual, does not reside in San Francisco County.

2 Declaration of Michael M. Astanehe ¶ 2. Defendant AIRBNB, INC., a corporation,

3 resides in San Francisco County. Astanehe Decl., ¶ 3. Defendant AIRBNB, INC.’S acts

4 and omissions, as referenced in Plaintiffs’ Complaint, occurred in San Francisco

5 County. Astanehe Decl., ¶ 4.

6 After counsel for Defendants Andersons requested a stipulation to transfer

7 venue, counsel for Plaintiffs asserted venue was proper in San Francisco County since

8 it is Defendant AIRBNB, INC.’S county of residence. Astanehe Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. A.

9 Counsel for Plaintiffs sent further correspondence supporting Plaintiffs’ commencement

10 of the action in San Francisco County on April 2, 2020 and April 7, 2020. Astanehe
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11 Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. B. During the two-month meet and confer process, counsel for Plaintiffs

12 provided copious legal authority supporting the correct decision to commence the
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170
ASTANEHE LAW

13 present action in San Francisco County Superior Court and avoid motion practice. Id.

14 Ultimately, Defendants disregarded the well-settled authority supporting venue in San
d

15 Francisco County and obstinately opted to file the instant motion. Id.

16 III. THE COURT MUST DENY A VENUE TRANSFER MOTION WHEN PLAINTIFF SELECTS
VENUE IN A COUNTY WHERE AT LEAST ONE DEFENDANT RESIDES AT THE
17 COMMENCEMENT OF THE ACTION
18
Under the California Code of Civil Procedure, venue is proper in the county
19
where defendants, or some of them, reside at the commencement of the action. CODE
20
OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 395(a). Additionally, a corporate defendant may be sued in the
21
county where it locates its principal place of business. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §
22
395.5. The California Supreme Court has held that a corporation has residence where
23
it locates its principal place of business. Jenkins v. The California Stage Co., 22 Cal.
24
537, 538 (1863). This rationale is buttressed by the United States Supreme Court’s
25
holding in Hertz Corp. v. Friend finding a corporation’s principal place of business is
26
where corporate officers direct, control, and coordinate activities, which is also referred
27
to as the “nerve center.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010).
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANDERSONS’
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – 2
1 The plaintiff’s choice of venue is presumptively correct, and the party challenging

2 venue has the burden of proving otherwise. Black Diamond Asphalt, Inc. v. Superior

3 Court, 109 Cal. App. 4th 166, 170 (2003). The court may only transfer venue upon the

4 rare instance a moving defendant manages to overcome this burden and produce

5 sufficient evidence showing improper venue. CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE §§ 396b,

6 397(a). As this motion evidences, Defendants cannot surmount this threshold burden.

7 Here, Defendant AIRBNB, INC. is a corporate defendant. Astanehe Decl., ¶ 3.

8 Defendant AIRBNB, INC.’S nerve center is in San Francisco, where its officers maintain

9 offices and exert control over the enterprise. Id. Indeed, the California Secretary of

10 State lists a San Francisco as Defendant AIRBNB, INC’S mailing and office address.
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11 Id., Ex. C. Additionally, Defendant AIRBNB, INC.’S terms of service refer to its San

12 Francisco nerve center. Id., Ex. D. Regardless of how Defendants may subsequently
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170
ASTANEHE LAW

13 attempt to spin Defendant AIRBNB, INC.’S residence, the corporation is a resident of

14 San Francisco County. Consequently, venue is proper in San Francisco County.
d

15 In light of Defendant AIRBNB, INC’S San Francisco residence, Defendants lack

16 authority to transfer venue. California case law is clear, Defendant AIRBNB, INC.’S

17 nerve center is in San Francisco county, and the San Francisco County Superior Court

18 is the appropriate venue for this action. Therefore, the Court must deny Defendants’

19 motion.

20 A. PLAINTIFFS COMMENCED THE ACTION IN DEFENDANT AIRBNB’S NERVE CENTER COUNTY

21 In a multi-defendant action, plaintiff may commence the action in any county

22 where a defendant resides. Taff v. Goodman, 41 Cal. App. 2d 771, 776 (1940). In the

23 absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, the presumption is that the county in

24 which an action is brought is, prima facie, the proper county when the court in which the

25 action is brought has subject matter jurisdiction. Chase v. South P.C.R. Co., 83 Cal.

26 468, 472 (1890). A defendant cannot transfer venue to a different county unless it

27 appears that none of the other defendants are a resident of the county where the action

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANDERSONS’
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – 3
1 is brought. Independent Iron Wks. V. Amer. Pres. Lines, Ltd., 35 Cal. 2d 858, 860

2 (1950).

3 Plaintiffs commenced the instant action in San Francisco County, California.

4 Astanehe Decl., ¶ 4. As shown above, Defendant AIRBNB, INC. resides in San

5 Francisco County, where its nerve center is located. Astanehe Decl., ¶ 3. Despite

6 Plaintiffs satisfying well-known authority, Defendants move the court requesting an

7 impermissible venue transfer to a different county offering myriad hallow arguments.

8
B. EVEN THOUGH INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS RESIDE ELSEWHERE, VENUE IS PROPER IN A
9 CORPORATE DEFENDANT’S NERVE CENTER COUNTY

10 In an action against both corporate and individual defendants, venue is proper for
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11 the action as a whole if it is correct as to any defendant. Buran Equip. Co. v. Sup. Ct.,
12 190 Cal. App. 3d 1662, 1666 (1987). Specifically, the action is properly venued in a
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170
ASTANEHE LAW

13 county where the corporate defendant has its principal place of business, despite not
14 being the county where the individual defendant resides. CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL
d

15 PROCEDURE § 395(a). The individual defendant may not have the action moved to their
16 county of residence because the preference for residence of venue under Code of Civil
17 Procedure section 395(a) is satisfied when venue is laid in a corporate defendant’s
18 “residence,” which is its principal place of business. Hale v. Bohannon, 38 Cal. 2d 458,
19 472-473 (1952).1 When a defendant who resides in the county where plaintiff
20 commences the action is a necessary and proper defendant, it is immaterial that
21 another and the principal defendant resides in another county. White v. Anderson, 50
22 Cal. App. 2d 634, 636 (1942). As held by the California Supreme Court in Jenkins v.
23 The California Stage Co., 22 Cal. 537 (1863) and reaffirmed by the California Court of
24 Appeal in Carruth v. Superior Court, 80 Cal. App. 3d 215 (1978), defendants are only
25
26
1Also see 3 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th Actions § 902 (2008) ("The general rules governing the joinder of defendants and the effect of the
27 joinder on venue apply whether the defendants are individuals or corporations. Hence, if a cause of action is stated against both,
and the joinder is in conformity with the statutes, the plaintiff may fix the venue at the residence of either the individual or the
corporation.")
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANDERSONS’
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – 4
1 entitled to transfer venue under Code of Civil Procedure section 395, where none of the

2 defendants reside in the county where plaintiff commenced the action.

3 Plaintiffs commenced an action against corporate Defendant AIRBNB, INC.,

4 which resides in San Francisco County, and individual Defendants STANLEY

5 ANDERSON & CATHRYN ANDERSON, who reside elsewhere. Plaintiffs filed the

6 action in San Francisco County Superior Court. Despite not being the individual

7 Defendants’ county of residence, San Francisco County is correct as to Defendant

8 AIRBNB, INC., as its nerve center is located in the county. Plaintiffs have satisfied

9 California Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a).

10 Under California case law, Defendants must not be allowed to subvert settled
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11 venue rules. Plaintiffs commenced the action in the proper county. Defendants cannot

12 compel the case elsewhere on the theory that the individual Defendants reside and
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170
ASTANEHE LAW

13 prefer venue in another county. Accordingly, the Court must deny Defendants’ motion.

14 C. WHEN ONE DEFENDANT RESIDES HERE, DEFENDANTS CANNOT TRANSFER THIS PROPERLY
d

15 VENUED ACTION OUT OF PREFERENCE FOR ANOTHER COUNTY

16 A plaintiff who has brought their action in the proper county will not be compelled
17 to go elsewhere merely because all or some of the defendants prefer it. Greenleaf v.
18 Jack, 135 Cal. 154, 155 (1901). In Greenleaf, the plaintiff brought an action against
19 multiple defendants in a county where some of the defendants resided. Id. at 154.
20 Despite all of the defendants joining a motion to transfer venue to another county where
21 other defendants resided, the California Supreme Court affirmed the lower court order
22 denying a change of venue. Id. at 155. The Court noted that it was the plaintiff’s right
23 to bring and prosecute the action in the county in which it commenced the action and
24 that defendants could not take away that right. Id. To allow a venue transfer under
25 Code of Civil Procedure section 395, it must appear that none of the defendants resided
26 in the county where plaintiff commenced the action. Id.
27
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANDERSONS’
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – 5
1 In moving to transfer venue, Defendants assert an option to change venue for

2 preference. Defendants’ Motion, p. 5. Defendants concede that Plaintiffs properly

3 venued the action by commencing the action in the county of Defendant AIRBNB’S

4 residence. Defendants’ Motion, p. 4. Thus, venue is proper, and Defendants cannot

5 compel transfer because they prefer another county. The instant matter is identical to

6 Greenleaf v. Jack – Plaintiffs have an undeniable right to bring this case in San

7 Francisco since at least one defendant resides in this county – and the Court must

8 follow the California Supreme Court’s ruling by denying Defendants’ motion.

9 D. DEFENDANTS’ LACK A CONTROLLING OPTION TO COMPEL TRANSFER TO ANY INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANT’S COUNTY OF RESIDENCE BECAUSE AT LEAST ONE DEFENDANT RESIDES IN
10 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11
Defendants’ Motion correctly asserts, “[g]enerally, in an action against both
12
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170

corporate and individual defendants, venue is proper for the action as a whole if it is
ASTANEHE LAW

13
correct as to any defendant. (Buran Equip. Co. v Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal. App.
14
d

3d 1662, 1666.)”. Defendants’ Motion, p. 4. In a preposterous departure from previously
15
introduced authority, Defendants claim – without providing a citation – the
16
abovementioned rule is subject to the whims of an individual defendant, who maintains
17
an option to transfer venue to their county of residence. To the extent that Defendants
18
can even support their contention with case law, the authority is inapplicable to the
19
instant matter before the court.
20
Despite being notably absent from Defendants’ motion, the individual defendant
21
option exception applies in limited circumstances where a plaintiff files an action against
22
individual and corporate defendants in a county where none reside, but where the
23
corporate defendant can be sued for non-resident grounds under California Code of
24
Civil Procedure section 395.5. Carruth v. Superior Court, 80 Cal. App. 3d 215 (1978).
25
“[W]here individuals are properly joined as defendants with an unincorporated
26
association and venue is laid in the county of residence of the association, the
27
preference for residence venue is satisfied and an individual defendant may not of right
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANDERSONS’
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – 6
1 secure a change of venue to the county of his residence.” Mosby v. Superior Court, 43

2 Cal. App. 3d 219, 226 (1974).

3 Here, Defendants’ tendered exception to the Buran rule is inapplicable. Unlike

4 the scenario examined in Carruth v. Superior Court, Plaintiffs commenced the action in

5 a county where at least one of the Defendants reside. As elaborated upon above,

6 Defendant AIRBNB, INC. resides in San Francisco county. Per Carruth v. Superior

7 Court, Defendants’ exception pertains to actions commenced in a venue where none of

8 the defendants reside, which is not the case in the present matter. This court must not

9 apply the Carruth individual defendant option exception and stick to the oft-cited

10 authority Plaintiffs, Defendants, and the California Supreme Court universally agree
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11 upon: “[I]n an action against both corporate and individual defendants, venue is proper

12 for the action as a whole if it is correct as to any defendant. (Buran Equip. Co. v.
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170
ASTANEHE LAW

13 Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal. App. 3d 1662, 1666)” Defendants’ Motion, p. 4.

14 Superior Courts throughout California have repeatedly adopted the above-cited
d

15 reasoning, including several judges in this Court. In Jakubovic v. Blackenhorn, San

16 Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-12-525121 (Exhibit F), the Honorable Marla

17 Miller denied a Defendant’s motion to transfer venue after determining, notwithstanding

18 individual defendants residing elsewhere, San Francisco to be the appropriate venue

19 because a Defendant LLC resided in the county. Similarly, in Tinnish v. Abumeri, San

20 Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-15-545183 (Exhibit G), a case involving

21 individual and corporate defendants, this Court denied a motion to transfer venue

22 finding that Defendant Dignity Health resided in San Francisco. The Court denied the

23 motion to transfer to Fresno County despite the alleged medical malpractice occurring in

24 Fresno County. This Court previously followed the California Supreme Court’s

25 precedent, and it must do so here. The Court must deny Defendants’ motion.

26 Against this backdrop, Defendants’ argument implodes harder than President

27 Donald Trump struggling to elocute a coherent paragraph without a teleprompter –

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANDERSONS’
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – 7
1 Defendants lack a controlling option to compel transfer to any individual’s county of

2 residence – since Plaintiffs properly venued the case in San Francisco County. Further,

3 venue is not only proper pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5., but venue

4 is also proper under Code of Civil Procedure section 395(a). Because Plaintiffs cannot

5 be compelled to change venue at the nonexistent option of the individual Defendants,

6 this court must deny Defendants’ motion.

7 E. SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY IS THE PROPER VENUE FOR FEHA CLAIM

8 An action under the Fair Employment & Housing Act (“FEHA”) may be brought,

9 “…in the county in which the records relevant to the practice are maintained and

10 administered…” GOVERNMENT CODE § 12965(b). A plaintiff suing under the FEHA may
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11 venue their action wherever the Act permits, even if other causes of action may

12 establish venue elsewhere. Brown v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 477, 488 (1984).
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170
ASTANEHE LAW

13 Defendant AIRBNB, INC.’S nerve center is located in San Francisco County. It

14 maintains and administers all records in and from San Francisco County, including all
d

15 records relating to Defendants’ discrimination, harassment, and retaliation of Plaintiffs

16 based on, inter alia, gender, and sexuality. Astanehe Decl., ¶ 3. Indeed, Defendant

17 AIRBNB’S corporate officers and in-house counsel all work out of, and maintain records

18 in, its 888 Brannan Street offices in San Francisco County. Astanehe Decl., ¶ 8. Under

19 FEHA, venue is proper in San Francisco County. This court must not transfer venue.

20 F. PROPER VENUE IN CONTRACT CLAIMS IS WHERE PERFORMANCE IS REQUIRED

21 Breach of contract claims are properly venued in the county in which

22 performance is required. Hale v. Bohannon, 38 Cal. 2d 458, 469 (1952). In this case,

23 the obligation occurred in San Francisco County.

24 Here, Defendant AIRBNB, INC. resided in San Francisco throughout the

25 creation, performance, and breach of the contract at issue. To the extent Defendant

26 AIRBNB, INC. was obligated to perform, it was required to execute performance in San

27 Francisco County. Astanehe Decl., ¶ 7. Indeed, when Plaintiffs contacted Defendant

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANDERSONS’
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – 8
1 AIRBNB, INC., its obligations to perform were in San Francisco County. Id. Thus, the

2 court must deny Defendants’ motion to transfer venue.

3 IV. THE COURT MUST SANCTION DEFENDANTS FOR THEIR BAD FAITH MOTION

4 California Code of Civil Procedure section 396b(b) permits a party to request
5 reasonable expenses and attorney fees for successfully opposing a motion to transfer
6 venue. CALIFORNIA CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 396b(b). In determining whether to
7 impose sanctions, the court must consider, “(1) whether an offer to stipulate to change
8 of venue was reasonably made and rejected, and (2) whether the motion…was made in
9 good faith given the facts and law the party making the motion or selecting the venue
10 knew or should have known.” Id. Because Defendants ultimately ignored Plaintiffs’
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11 significant attempts at edification on the laws elaborated upon above, Defendants move
12
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170

in bad faith, and the court must impose monetary sanctions.
ASTANEHE LAW

13 After counsel for Defendants Andersons requested a stipulation to transfer
14 venue, counsel for Plaintiffs replied that venue was proper in San Francisco County
d

15 since it is Defendant AIRBNB, INC.’S county of residence. Astanehe Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.
16 Counsel for Plaintiffs sent further correspondence supporting Plaintiffs’ commencement
17 of the action in San Francisco County on April 2, 2020 and April 7, 2020. Id. During the
18 two-month meet and confer process, counsel for Plaintiffs provided copious legal
19 authority supporting the correct decision to commence the present action in San
20 Francisco County Superior Court. Id. Ultimately, Defendants disregarded the fact that
21 venue is proper in San Francisco County and opted to file the instant motion.
22 In their motion Defendant construes Plaintiffs’ position as a narrow exception that
23 ignores the facts. However, this interpretation ignores that Defendants’ argument is
24 based on a narrow exception, which does not even apply to the instant matter.
25 Defendants’ Motion, p. 4. In their moving papers, Defendants concede that venue is
26 proper as a whole if it is correct as to any defendant. Id. After correctly stating this
27 general rule, Defendants sidestep the facts by trying to slip an inapplicable narrow
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANDERSONS’
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – 9
1 exception allowing individual defendants to compel transfer past the court. Id. Tellingly,

2 Defendants fail to state that their narrow exception only applies in situation where the

3 plaintiff venues the action in a county where none of the individual or corporate

4 defendants reside. Buran Equip. Co. v. Sup. Ct., 190 Cal. App. 3d 1662, 1666 (1987);

5 Carruth v. Superior Court, 80 Cal. App. 3d 215, 220 (1978). The Court must not fall for

6 Defendants’ dawdling antics.

7 Defendants admit Plaintiffs have a right to try the instant case in San Francisco

8 County. Defendants ignore this right and knowingly attempt to circumvent California

9 law. Thus, the Court must sanction Defendants for this bad faith motion based on an

10 inapplicable narrow exception offered in defiance of the facts of this case.
71 Stevenson Street, Suite 400, San Francisco, California 94105

11 Plaintiffs will submit an account of costs and expenses for the Court’s review.

12 V. CONCLUSION
astanehelaw.com • (415) 226 - 7170
ASTANEHE LAW

13 Despite asserting a litany of inapplicable narrow exceptions and theories

14 contravening the facts, Defendants admit venue is proper in San Francisco County. In
d

15 addition to proper venue under the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs correctly venue

16 the case in San Francisco County under FEHA, as is permitted by law. San Francisco

17 is the proper venue for this action. Defendants know this. They have brought the

18 instant motion in bad faith. Thus, the Court must not only deny Defendants’ motion to

19 transfer venue but also impose monetary sanctions.

20 For the foregoing reasons, this Court must deny Defendants’ motion to transfer

21 venue. San Francisco County is the proper venue to bring and prosecute this action.

22
23 Respectfully Submitted, Dated: June 12, 2020

24
25
Michael M. Astanehe
26 ASTANEHE LAW
Attorney for Plaintiffs
27
28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ANDERSONS’
MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE – 10

Case Info

Judge

Samuel K. Feng Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 12, 2020

Case Filing Date

January 22, 2020

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Motion-Secondary: **TRANSFERRED TO SOMONA CO.** JANE DOE ET AL VS. AIRBNB, INC

Preview

Related Topics

Case Info

Parties

Motion-Secondary: TRANSFERRED TO SOMONA CO. JANE DOE ET AL VS. AIRBNB, INC