Lady-Bliss v. Super. Ct. CA5

Filed 12/18/13 Lady-Bliss v. Super. Ct. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIANNE LADY-BLISS,

Petitioner, F067142 v. (Super. Ct. No. 250067) THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TULARE COUNTY, OPINION Respondent;

CYNTHIA V. BUSH et al.,

Real Parties in Interest.

THE COURT ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ of mandate. Lloyd L. Hicks, Judge. Law Offices of Stephen M. Feldman and Stephen M. Feldman, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Quinlan, Kershaw & Fanucchi and Edward L. Fanucchi, for Real Parties in Interest. -ooOoo-

 Before Hill, P.J., Cornell, J., and Franson, J.

Petitioner and defendant below Dianne Lady-Bliss (petitioner) challenges the trial court’s denial of her motion for change of venue. We agree the trial court erred in denying the motion and grant relief. BACKGROUND Real parties in interest and plaintiffs below Cynthia V. Bush, individually and as surviving wife of Charles L. Bush, Harlace Wallace, and Blake Wallace, filed a complaint in Tulare County Superior Court naming as defendants petitioner and Farmers Financial Solutions, LLC (Farmers). The complaint states that Tulare County Superior Court was the proper court because “a defendant entered into the contract here” and “the contract was to be performed here.” The attachment to the complaint states a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty in that petitioner was a registered representative of defendant Farmers and was plaintiffs’ financial advisor from 2005 until 2011. It further alleges “Defendants were financial advisors of the Plaintiffs by soliciting, recommending and making investments to and for them, and gained the trust and confidence of the Plaintiffs for investments.” The complaint then details four different investments and/or loans for which plaintiffs have not been repaid. The complaint further states a cause of action for aiding and abetting in that petitioner aided and abetted others in a scheme to gather funds for various projects which were misrepresented as to their likelihood of success. For reasons not explained in the petition, plaintiffs dismissed Farmers. Petitioner thereafter filed a motion for change of venue claiming she resides in Los Angeles County, that she and Farmers do business in Los Angeles County, and that the gravamen of the complaint was for tort with recovery of damages and not for breach of contract. Because the causes of action of breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting are transitory ─ dealing with financial obligations or personal relationships ─ Los Angeles is the proper county. Petitioner asserts that even if the agreements were entered into in Tulare County, she was not a party to those agreements.