Garrett v. Superior Court

Opinion

BURKE, J.

In this case we determine whether real party in interest, Riverside County Hood Control and Water Conservation District (District) is a “local agency” under Code of Civil Procedure section 394,

1

per-

[247]

taming to motions for change of venue. We hold that District is a local agency and consequently that petitioners (Owners) are entitled, under section 394, to change of venue "as a matter of right.

2

In July 1973 District filed a complaint in eminent domain to acquire the property of Owners in order to construct a storm control channel. Owners moved to transfer venue to a neutral county pursuant to section 394. District opposed this motion, contending that it was not a “local agency” within the meaning of the statute; rather it claimed to be an agency of the

state

and thus specifically excluded from coverage under section 394, subdivision (3). The trial court denied Owners’ motion, and Owners now seek a writ of mandate to compel the court to transfer the cause. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 400.)

District relies primarily upon dictum in another eminent domain action in which it was a party,

Riverside etc. Dist.

v.

Jos. W. Wolfskill Co.,

147 Cal.App.2d 714 [306 P.2d 22], The

Wolf skill

case involved an earlier version of section 394, which, until amended in 1970, applied only to cities and counties, and not to “local agencies.” The only question raised in that case was whether the pre-1970 version of section 394 could be construed to include District on the grounds that it was “in essence and nature a county.”

(Id.,