City of Chico v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Feb 5, 1979 No. Civ. 44881Published

Before: Drummond

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Code of Civil Procedure section 394, which governs venue for actions against cities and counties, does not apply to cross-defendants in a cross-complaint for indemnity and contribution. Consequently, venue is determined by the original complaint, and the trial court did not err in denying the motion for change of venue.

Issues

Does Code of Civil Procedure section 394 apply to cities and counties when they are named as cross-defendants rather than defendants in an action?
Is venue for a cross-complaint against a public entity governed by the same rules as the original complaint?

Disposition. denied

Opinion

DRUMMOND, J.

Petitioners, City of Chico and County of Butte, seek a writ of mandate commanding respondent Superior Court of San Francisco to vacate its order denying their motion for change of venue.

Petitioners are cross-defendants in an action pending in respondent court, entitled James Decker Williams, Jr., and Karen Yvonne Williams, plaintiffs vs. Southern Pacific Company, a corporation, et al., defendants. The plaintiffs and cross-complainants in that action are named in this petition as real parties in interest.

[189]

On March 1, 1978, real parties in interest, James Decker Williams, Jr., and Karen Yvonne Williams, filed in respondent court a complaint for damages for personal injuries, loss of consortium and property damage against real party in interest Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SP) and other defendants, allegedly arising from a vehicular collision involving real party in interest James Decker Williams, Jr., and an employee of SP on February 15, 1978, on a public highway located in the City of Chico, County of Butte.

SP cross-complained for indemnity, comparative contribution, comparative indemnification and declaratory relief against petitioners alleging that Williams’ injuries were caused by the negligence of petitioners.

Petitioners County of Butte and City of Chico moved for a change of venue from respondent court to the Butte County Superior Court. The motions were denied, and this proceeding ensued.

Petitioners base their argument that respondent erred when it denied their motions for change of venue on Code of Civil Procedure section 394, subdivision (1), which provides in part that: “... any action or proceeding

against

the city, county, city and county, or local agency for injury occurring within the city, county, or city and county, or within the county in which such local agency is situated, to person or property or person and property caused by the negligence or alleged negligence of such city, county, city and county, local agency, or its agents or employees,

City of Chico v. Superior Court

AI Brief

DRUMMOND, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief