ACES UP CASINO PARTIES, LLC VS. 3 OF A KIND CASINO EVENTS ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Friday, August 29, 2025, Line 8 [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling]. DEFENDANT BAY CITY EVENTS, INC.'s MOTION TO TRANSFER.

Defendant Bay City Events, Inc.'s motion to transfer venue is DENIED.

Plaintiff Aces Up Casino Parties, LLC alleges that eight corporate defendants stifled competition in the casino equipment rental industry by misclassifying their employees as independent contractors and selling their services at cost. Plaintiff asserts two statutory claims (violations of the Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions Code, sections 17200 et seq., and the Unfair Practices Act (Business & Professions Code, sections 17000, et seq.) and a claim for tortious interference with prospective economic relations.

Bay City now moves to transfer venue to its principal place of business in Santa Clara County. (Ramirez decl. para. 3.)

Code of Civil Procedure, section 396b requires the court to transfer an action when the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court. In transitory actions against corporations, venue is proper either where the corporation has its principal place of business, where the contract was made or to be performed, or where the obligation or liability arose or the breach occurred. (Id., section 395.5.)

A corporate defendant seeking to change venue to the county of its principal place of business has the burden of negating the propriety of venue as laid on all possible grounds. (Karson Industries, Inc. v. Superior Court of Contra Costa County (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 7; Anaheim Extrusion Co. v. Superior Ct. (1985) 170 Cal. App. 3d 1201.) As the moving party, the defendant must overcome the presumption that the plaintiff has selected a proper venue. (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836.)

Bay City fails to show that no liability as to any defendant arose in San Francisco. Aces Up's complaint alleges wrongful interference with its contractual relationships and unfair competition. The complaint avers the Defendants accomplished these torts by selling their services at a lower cost because they are misclassifying their workers as independent contractors.

Bay City provides no evidence addressing whether the seven other corporate defendants interfered with Plaintiff's casino events in San Francisco. Bay City also fails to disprove that its own business dealings in San Francisco gave rise to liability. Bay City admits in its supporting declaration that it hosted sixteen casino events in San Francisco. (Ramirez decl. para. 5.)

Though Bay City denies directly competing for business with Plaintiff for these events, Aces Up's theory of the case is broader. Bay City could in theory have stifled competition by selling its services for these San Francisco events at cost, while using the labor of misclassified employees. Thus, Bay City has not met its burden of showing none of Aces Up's injuries occurred in San Francisco.

[End of part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.] =(301/CVA) | |