MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC

Defendant appears to concede that venue is proper in Sacramento County as to any plaintiff who resides in this county on grounds Sacramento County is the location where the liability arose. (See Memo., p. 6:28 – 7:2 [“Although venue in tort cases against companies is appropriate where the liability arose (Code Civ. Proc. § 395.5), four plaintiffs misrepresented where they live and,

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 01/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 47

by extension, where they received the purported emails.”) Thus, Defendant moves to transfer venue as to only as to four of the ten plaintiffs. To achieve this result, Defendant requests the Court sever the claims of the Subject Plaintiffs.

Defendant presents two arguments as to why the Subject Plaintiffs’ claims should be severed. First, Defendant argues the Subject Plaintiffs should not be allowed to benefit from Plaintiff’s Counsel’s alleged material misrepresentations regarding the Subject Plaintiffs’ residences. However, this is not a motion for sanctions arising from alleged material misrepresentations, nor does Defendant cite any authority that severance is a proper remedy for the alleged misrepresentations. Thus, the request to sever the Subject Plaintiffs’ claims as a consequence of Counsel’s purported material misrepresentations is denied. The Court makes no final determination at this time as to whether Plaintiff’s Counsel made the alleged intentional misrepresentations or whether such misrepresentations would warrant the imposition of sanctions.

Second, Defendant argues the Subject Plaintiffs’ claims should be severed because the Plaintiffs are not properly joined under Code of Civil Procedure § 378. Objections regarding the misjoinder of Plaintiffs must be made by demurrer or answer or are waived. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 4310.10(d), 430.80(a).) Upon review, Defendant’s answer filed October 10, 2024 does not assert an affirmative defense based on the misjoinder of Plaintiffs. Thus, Defendant has waived any argument that the Subject Plaintiffs are not properly joined.

The Court notes Defendant’s actions in this litigation are consistent with a waiver of any objection regarding the joinder of the parties. Defendant has not at any time filed a motion to sever the Plaintiffs’ claims into ten separate actions and has taken advantage of the Plaintiffs’ joinder by filing discovery motions directed at multiple plaintiffs and by filing three applications for the admission of counsel pro hac vice. Had Defendant sought to sever the claims of Plaintiffs into ten separate actions, Defendant’s counsel may have been unable to obtain admission pro hac vice, as repeated appearances are grounds for denial of such applications.

Under these circumstances, the Court finds Defendant has waived any objection that the Plaintiffs are misjoined under Code of Civil Procedure § 378. The motion to sever the claims of the Subject Plaintiffs is therefore denied.

As noted above, Defendant has failed to meet its burden to show venue is improper as to the other six plaintiffs. Defendant does not request and does not explain why a transfer of venue would be proper when venue is improper as to only four of the ten plaintiffs. The motion to transfer venue is therefore denied. As the motion is denied, the request for an award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees is also denied.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV016009: MOSLEY, et al. vs MCAFEE, LLC 01/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 47

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 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.