General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Jan 3, 1983 No. AO19360Published

Before: Scott

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that venue in Alameda County was improper because the named plaintiff failed to establish a personal cause of action against the Doe defendant served in that county, and the defendant sufficiently established that its principal place of business was in Los Angeles County.

Issues

Whether a class action plaintiff can establish venue in a specific county by naming a local Doe defendant without having a personal cause of action against that defendant.
Whether a defendant seeking a change of venue must negate all possible theories of venue or if a sufficient showing of the defendant's principal place of business is adequate.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Unless real party has a personal cause of action against Lew Doty Cadillac, he may not represent a class in a suit against Lew Doty. If real party cannot maintain an action against Lew Doty, it follows a fortiori that he cannot justify venue”

“Such a burden on the moving party would be intolerable.”

“Absent some contrary showing by real party, that evidence must be found sufficient to defeat any claim that General Motors' principal place of business might be in Alameda County and to establish that Los Angeles is the proper venue”

141 Cal.App.3d 966 (1983) 190 Cal. Rptr. 742 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner,

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ALAMEDA COUNTY, Respondent; JOHN A. JUNGLAS, Real Party in Interest.

Docket No. AO19360. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Three.

January 3, 1983. [968] COUNSEL

McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, J. Thomas Rosch, William Bates III, Catherine Curtiss, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue and Patrick F. McCartan for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Ernest M. Thayer, Robert M. Brown and Brown & Finney for Real Party in Interest.

OPINION

SCOTT, J.

This petition by General Motors Corporation for writ of mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 400) challenges a trial court ruling denying change of venue. It raises issues concerning where a class action may be brought and what showing must be made by a defendant seeking to change venue. We have concluded that venue in Alameda County is not proper and that the writ should issue.

The complaint, filed in Alameda County Superior Court by real party in interest John Junglas, alleges defects in the 1981 Cadillac V-8-6-4 engine causing unexpected surges, delays, and cessations of power. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs suing General Motors Corporation, Rector Cadillac, and various Doe defendants for defects in design, manufacturing, and servicing, for breach of implied and express warranties, and for misrepresentations.

After service and before answering the complaint, General Motors Corporation moved for a change of venue to Los Angeles County, asserting that neither General Motors nor Rector Cadillac, a San Mateo County dealership, had its principal place of business in Alameda County, and that the contracts were not made, to be performed, or breached in Alameda County.[1] Thereafter, plaintiff amended the complaint and served Lew Doty Cadillac of Hayward, Alameda

General Motors Corp. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

OPINION

SCOTT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOTES

AI Brief