Marin Community College District v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Aug 18, 1977 No. Civ. 41794Published

Before: Christian

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a community college district is a "local agency" subject to the venue transfer provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 394, but remanded the case to determine if the real party in interest was doing business in the transferee county.

Issues

Whether a community college district constitutes a "local agency" under Code of Civil Procedure section 394.
Whether a motion for change of venue under section 394 must be denied if not filed at the time of the answer.
Whether the trial court failed to determine if a party was doing business in the transferee county as required by section 394.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“petitioner is “a local agency within a certain county” for the purposes of section 394.”

“A motion for change of venue pursuant to section 394 need not be denied on the ground that it is untimely unless it is pursued for dilatory purposes and unless the public agency can show substantial prejudice.”

“A writ will issue commanding respondent court to vacate the order granting a change of venue, to determine whether real party in interest Rheem Manufacturing Company is doing business in Alameda”

[721]

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

Marin Community College District has petitioned for a writ of mandate to set aside an order of respondent Marin County Superior Court changing the venue of a civil action.

Petitioner filed suit for damages against certain of the real parties in interest, alleging deficiencies in air conditioning and heating systems which had been installed at the College of Marin in 1971. On July 29, 1976, petitioner filed a memorandum that civil case is at issue.

Defendant S. J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc. moved for a change of venue, on the ground that Code of Civil Procedure section 394 “provides that when an action is brought by a ‘local agency’ within a certain county against a resident or corporation doing business in another county, the action must be transferred to another county, on motion of either party.” S. J. Amoroso Construction Company was based in Foster City. Cross-defendants Rheem Manufacturing Company and Acme Industries, Inc. also moved for a change of venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 394. Petitioner resisted the motions for change of venue, contending that Code of Civil Procedure section 394 “has no application to the Marin Community College District” and that the motion was not timely. The motions were granted and the action was transferred to Alameda County.

Section 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part: “(1) An action or proceeding against a county ... or local agency, may be tried in such county, or city and county, or the county in which such city or local agency is situated, unless such action or proceeding is brought by a county ... or local agency, in which case it may be tried in any county, or city and county, not a party thereto and in which the city or local agency is not situated. Whenever an action or proceeding is brought by a county ... or local agency within a certain county, or city and county, against a resident of another county ... or a corporation doing business in the latter, the action or proceeding must be, on motion of either party, transferred for trial to a county, or city and county, other than the plaintiff, if the plaintiff is a county . . . and other than that in'which the plaintiff is situated, if the plaintiff is ... a local agency, and other than that in which the defendant resides, or is doing business, or is situated. . .

Marin Community College District v. Superior Court

AI Brief

CHRISTIAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief