CORRAL vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES

25CV018926: CORRAL vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 02/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 47

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.

The motion of Defendant California Department of Developmental Services (“Defendant”) to transfer this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Tulare is ruled on as follows.

This is an action for defamation, breach of contract, emotional distress, and other economic damages. Defendant moves to transfer venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 396b and 397(c).

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 396b, on timely motion by a defendant, the Court shall transfer an action that was commenced in an improper venue to the proper place for trial. “The plaintiff's choice of venue is presumptively correct.” (Easton v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3d 243, 274.) Thus, on a motion under section 396b, the moving party has the burden of showing the action was not commenced in a proper county and that trial is proper in the proposed county for transfer. (Sequoia Pine Mills, Inc. v. Superior Court of Tuolumne County (1968) 258 Cal.App.2d 65, 68.)

Venue in California is governed by the statutory scheme set in place by the Legislature. (See Alexander v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 723.) Thus, to meet its burden on a motion brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 396b, Defendants must identify the statute(s) governing venue in this action and explain why Sacramento County is an improper venue and Tulare County is a proper venue pursuant to the applicable statute(s). Further, the moving papers are devoid of any citation to statute or other legal authority explaining how the Court should

25CV018926: CORRAL vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 02/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 47

determine the proper venue for this action. Defendant has therefore failed to meet its burden to show that Sacramento County is an improper county. Notably, the complaint alleges venue is proper in Sacramento County “because the cause of action arose in this County and the Defendant resides and conducts business within the State of California.” (Complaint, ¶ 2.0.) The Court must presume these allegations support venue in Sacramento County. Defendant fails to rebut these allegations or to provide authority explaining why these allegations do not control venue. The Court notes venue may be proper in multiple counties. Thus, Defendant’s assertion that “nearly-identical” cases were previously located in Tulare County is not sufficient to show Sacramento County is an improper venue.

Defendant also moves to transfer venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 397(c). “The court will not entertain a motion for change of venue on the ground of convenience of witnesses when the defendant has not filed an answer, for the reason that until the issues are joined the court cannot determine what testimony will be material.” (Johnson v. Superior Court (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 212, 214 citing Pearson v. Superior Court (1962) 199 Cal.App.2d 69, 75.) The record indicates Defendant has not filed an answer. Thus, the motion on this ground is premature and may not be considered at this time.

The motion to transfer venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 396b is denied. The motion to transfer venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 397(c) is denied, without prejudice, as premature.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018926: CORRAL vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES 02/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 47

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.