Xinyao Zhou v. Yan Ren et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: June 25, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 4 25CV468241 In re: 18255 Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Clemson Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Line 5 26CV487480 Xinyao Zhou v. Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling. Yan Ren et al. Line 6 21CV376809 Travelers Property Defendant Indian Harbor Insurance Company’s motion for summary Casualty of adjudication. Based on a notice of settlement, the matter is taken OFF America v. CALENDAR. Plaintiff Traveler’s Property Casualty Company of Critchfield America is ordered to inform the court no later than July 1, 2026, Mechanical, Inc. et regarding whether the summary judgment reservation set for October 8, al. 2026, will remain on calendar.

- oo0oo -

9:01 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 26CV486250 Megan Weldon v. Application of Matthew D. Gorman to appear pro hac vice for defendant Cortex Applications, Cortex Applications, Inc. No objection filed. Good cause appearing, Inc. the application is GRANTED. Moving party to submit proposed order. Line 2 2010-1-CV- N. Madrigal v. S. Order of examination. Parties ordered to appear. 184285 Mann Line 3 2010-1-CV- N. Madrigal v. S. Order to show cause re failure to appear by judgment debtor. Parties 184285 Mann ordered to appear.

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 5 Case Name: Xinyao Zhou v. Yan Ren et al. Case No.: 26CV487480

Defendant Yan Ren’s motion to transfer venue. Notice is proper and the motion is opposed by plaintiff Xinyao Zhou. The other named defendants are Robert Solis and Beyond Biz Law, PC. The complaint alleges causes of action for professional negligence (legal malpractice) and other torts, related to defendants’ representation of plaintiff in “litigation captioned Xinyao Zhou v. Hotel Winters, LLC, Yolo County Superior Court Case Nos. CV2022-1963 and CV2023-0312, and a related case Hotel Winters, LLC v. Xinyao Zhou, Case No. CV2023-1836.” (Complaint, ¶ 2.)

If “an action or proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter thereof, other than the court designated as the proper court for the trial thereof, under this title, the action may, notwithstanding, be tried in the court where commenced, unless the defendant, at the time he or she answers, demurs, or moves to strike, or, at his or her option, without answering, demurring, or moving to strike and within the time otherwise allowed to respond to the complaint, files with the clerk, a notice of motion for an order transferring the action or proceeding to the proper court, together with proof of service, upon the adverse party, of a copy of those papers.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 396b, subd. (a).) If it appears that the action or proceeding was not commenced in the proper court, the court shall order the action transferred to the proper court. (Ibid.) The moving defendant has the burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds. (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.) A court also has discretion, on motion of a party, to “change the place of trial” when the “convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 397.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 395, subdivision (a) governs venue in this case. Among other things, it provides that venue is proper (1) “where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action,” or (2) in a case where negligence is alleged, “where the injury occurs or the injury causing death occurs or the county where the defendants, or some of them reside at the commencement of the action.” “A corporation or association may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arises, or the breach occurs; or in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395.5.)

It is undisputed that defendant Ren resides in San Diego County. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that the other defendants also reside in San Diego County. (Complaint, ¶¶ 2-4.) Plaintiff’s allegations about injury largely relate to defendant Ren’s work for plaintiff on the cases plaintiff litigated in Yolo County. Under section 395, subdivision (a), venue is therefore appropriate in either San Diego or Yolo County. By contrast, the main connection to Santa Clara County appears to be that plaintiff resides here.

The court further exercises its discretion under Code of Civil Procedure section 397 to transfer the matter to Yolo County. The court finds that the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. Plaintiff chose Yolo County as the venue for the actions for which she argues defendants provided negligent representation. Any third party witnesses related to that litigation are likely also located in or around Yolo County.

Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition are unpersuasive. Plaintiff argues she received alleged misrepresentations and detrimentally relied on the engagement letter “from her Santa Clara County residence.” She also argues she experiences emotional distress in this county. But the source of those injuries was defendants’ work for plaintiff on the Yolo County actions. Even under Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5––which applies to only the corporate defendant who has not filed the instant motion––liability and any breach of contract occurred in Yolo County. Plaintiff’s argument about an “appearance concern” based on Yolo County judges having decided other cases adversely to plaintiff is not persuasive, as it is based on speculation.

The motion to transfer venue is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 395, 397.) Moving party is ordered to submit a proposed order restating this tentative decision verbatim and ordering the case transferred to Yolo County.

- oo0oo -

20