DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV0008257·marin·Civil·Venue
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

Katarina Bordeaux v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc

Motion – Change of Venue

Hearing date
Jul 17, 2026
Department
L
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffKatarina Bordeaux
DefendantAmerican Honda Motor Co., Inc

Ruling

Defendant American Honda a motion to approve for change of venue, with a request to transfer the case from Marin County, Superior Court of California, to Sacramento County Superior Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 397(c).

Defendant asserts that the operative facts and relevant parties have no connection to Marin County. Defendant asserts that the events giving rise to these claims occurred in Sacramento County. Specifically, (1) the Subject Vehicle was purchased from Elk Grove Honda – a dealership located in Sacramento County; (2) the alleged misrepresentations and contractual negotiations occurred in Sacramento County; (3) the Subject Vehicle was exclusively serviced at a dealership in Sacramento County; and (4) all relevant service and diagnostic records are located in Sacramento County.

Plaintiff has not filed a response, nor was an opposition to the venue change filed. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c); Local Rule Marin, Civil 2.8G.1.) Defendant’s motion is therefore GRANTED in it’s entirely.

Defendant to prepare the order.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by

order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are diving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share