Dept. of the Cal. Highway Patrol v. Superior Court CA3

Filed 8/21/24 Dept. of the Cal. Highway Patrol v. Superior Court CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

DEPARTMENT OF THE CALIFORNIA C100504 HIGHWAY PATROL, (Super. Ct. No. 23WM000002) Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY,

Respondent;

MARIO SENCION,

Real Party in Interest.

Petitioner Department of the California Highway Patrol (CHP) brings a petition for writ of mandate and request for stay challenging respondent Superior Court of Sacramento County’s order denying CHP’s motion to transfer venue. CHP contends transfer is mandatory under relevant statutory and case law authority. We agree. We will

1

issue a peremptory writ of mandate ordering respondent superior court to vacate its order and issue a new order granting the motion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In mid-2023, real party in interest Mario Sencion filed, in respondent superior court, a petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure1 section 1094.5 challenging the decision of the State Personnel Board (Board) sustaining his dismissal as a highway patrol officer. CHP thereafter moved to transfer venue to Los Angeles County. Supporting its motion, CHP cited Lynch v. Superior Court (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 929, 930-931 (Lynch). In Lynch, a writ was granted after the superior court refused to transfer venue. (Id. at pp. 930, 932-933.) The Lynch court explained that venue lies at the employee’s “place of employment or center of operation” when he or she was dismissed. (Ibid.) Sencion opposed the motion, arguing Sacramento County is the proper venue because both the Board and CHP are located in Sacramento and the cause arose in Sacramento. Respondent superior court denied the motion. It explained that, while venue transfer is mandatory when the wrong court is designated in the complaint, the presumption is the county where the complaint is filed is the proper one and the moving party bears the burden of proving otherwise. Respondent court concluded that CHP had not met its burden because it failed to address the different context in which Lynch was decided. CHP also offered no admissible evidence, according to respondent court, showing Sencion worked in Los Angeles County, nor did Sencion’s petition allege as much. And even assuming Sencion worked in Los Angeles, CHP is headquartered in