Search anything: case name, case number, motion type, judge, or party
James L. CRANDALL
(Subscribe to View)
March 29, 2018
Orange County, CA
May 03, 2018
Aguilera Vs. Nissan North America, Inc.
Wilson Vs. Mufg Union Bank, N.A.
National Funding, Inc. Vs. Guijar Limo Corp
Torres Vs. St. Jude Medical Center
Mcmullin Vs. Barry A Ross, A Professional Corporation
Daghighian Vs. Hyundai Motor America
Mireles Vs. Lupercio
Nguyen Vs. Tran
Clem Vs. Hawley
Gregory Vs. Taki Sun, Inc.
1. Motion by Plaintiff Tony Nguyen to Change Venue: Moving Party fails to cite any appropriate legal authority to support his request. He cites CRC 4.151, which pertains to motions for change of venue pursuant to Penal Code 1033. Obviously, this authority is inapplicable. While it appears that Moving Party seeks a change of venue because “a fair and impartial trial cannot be had,” due to alleged bias by Orange County judicial officers, Penal Code 1033 only allows a motion to change venue on this basis in a criminal case by a criminal defendant. This is not a criminal case and moving parties are plaintiffs, not defendants. Moving party also cites 28 USC 1404, which authorizes changes of venue in federal district courts. This authority is not applicable to this state court action either. Rather, the correct authority would be C.C.P. § 397(b): “The court may, on motion, change the place of trial … [w]hen there is reason to believe that an impartial........
You can see and manage all of your alerts under Settings -> Alerts
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.