IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTINE LALLY

The motion of Respondent Juan Guerrero Bautista, M.D. (“Respondent”) to transfer this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno is ruled on as follows.

Petitioner Christine Lally, Acting Director of the Department of Consumer Affairs (“Petitioner”) commenced this action pursuant to Government Code § 11180, et seq. to compel compliance with an investigational subpoena. Relying on Government Code § 11186, Respondent contends this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the petition and therefore requests the action be transferred to Fresno County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 396b and 397. Petitioner opposes the motion.

The Court notes that ordinarily, a motion to transfer under Code of Civil Procedure § 396b or 397 is proper when the court where the action was commenced has subject matter jurisdiction but when the county where that court is situated is not a proper place for trial based on the Legislative rules for venue. However, Code of Civil Procedure § 396(a) states that “[n]o appeal or petition filed in the superior court shall be dismissed solely because the appeal or petition was not filed in the proper state court.” Accordingly, if the Court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this petition, the Court may properly grant the transfer requested by Respondent.

The parties agree that whether the Court has jurisdiction is governed by Government Code § 11186, which states:

“The superior court in the county in which any hearing is held or any investigation is conducted under the direction of the head of a department or the county in which testimony is designated to be given or documents or other items are designated to be produced, has jurisdiction to compel the attendance of witnesses, the giving of testimony, the answering without objection of interrogatories, and the production, inspection, and copying of papers, books, accounts, documents, and other items described in subdivision (e) of Section 11181 as required by any subpoena issued by the department head.”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV002658: IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTINE LALLY 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 17A

Based on this language, the Court has jurisdiction if 1) there has been a hearing held in Sacramento County, 2) the investigation is being conducted in Sacramento County, or 3) the subpoena compels testimony or documents to be produced within Sacramento County.

It is undisputed that the subject subpoena compels the production of documents in Fresno County, not Sacramento County.

Respondent contends no hearing related to this petition has been conducted in Sacramento County to support jurisdiction. In opposition, Petitioner contends there was a prior settlement conference hearing held in Sacramento County in the case of In the Matter of Accusation Against Juan Guerrerro Buautista, M.D., California Medical Board Case Number 800-2019-054764 and that jurisdiction is therefore proper in Sacramento County. However, it appears that action related to a prior accusation and that the instant investigation is being conducted for purposes of a different, subsequent Petition to Revoke Probation.

To establish jurisdiction under Government Code § 11186, a hearing must be “in direct relation to the investigation . . . .” (Whitney v. Montegut (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 906, 913.) The Court is not persuaded that a hearing for a prior accusation is in direct relation to a subsequent investigation commenced after the prior accusation was resolved. Thus, the hearing in the prior action does not satisfy the requirement for establishing jurisdiction for the instant investigation. Petitioner also contends that the hearing for the current Petition to Revoke Probation will be conducted in the Sacramento Office of Administrative Hearings.

However, the plain language of Government Code § 11186 authorizes jurisdiction only in a location where a hearing has been held. The Legislature did not authorize jurisdiction in a County where a future hearing will be held. The Court is not persuaded that the possibility of a future hearing in Sacramento County is sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Government Code §11186.

Finally, based on the declaration of Investigator Tiffany Stokes, which is attached to the Petition, Plaintiff argues that the investigation has been conducted solely in Fresno County and that the Fresno County Superior Court is therefore the only Court with jurisdiction to hear this petition. In opposition, Petitioner cites to the declaration of Deputy Attorney General Kalev Kaseoru (“Kaseoru”), also attached to the Petition, as evidence that the investigation was conducted jointly in Sacramento County. Kaseoru performed various investigation-related tasks from an office in Sacramento County, including interviewing witnesses, researching case law, and reviewing case related documents. (Kaseoru Decl., ¶ 3.) Kaseoru also represents an expert, Dr. Howard Slyter, was consulted in Sacramento County. (Id., ¶ 4.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV002658: IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTINE LALLY 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 17A

In Whitney v. Montegut, supra, 222 Cal.App.4th at p. 914, the Appellate Court found that a declaration indicating counsel was assigned to direct the investigation from Los Angeles and performed various investigational tasks in Los Angeles, including “interviewing witnesses, researching applicable case law, making phone calls, filing the petition for interim suspension, and enforcement of investigational subpoenas” was substantial evidence supporting a finding that the investigation was in-part conducted in Los Angeles County. The Appellate Court also found the involvement of a medical expert that provided a consultation in Los Angeles County and signed a declaration in Los Angeles supported the finding that the investigation occurred inpart in Los Angeles County.

Here, Petitioner has provided a declaration from Kaseoru, which provides evidence Kaseoru performed tasks in Sacramento County that are substantially similar to those performed by the investigating counsel in Whitney. Further, and similar to Whitney, Petitioner has retained an expert that provided a consultation in Sacramento County. The Court finds this evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the investigation is being conducted jointly in Sacramento County. This Court therefore has jurisdiction to hear the petition. (Gov. Code § 11186.) The motion to transfer is DENIED. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV002658: IN THE MATTER OF: CHRISTINE LALLY 04/24/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 17A

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.