Case Conclusion Date: 06.10.2009
Practice Area: Appeals
Outcome: Transfer of venue reversed
Description: The appellate court concluded that venue was proper in Santa Clara County and that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering transfer of the action to Orange County. Because the borrower's action arose from a loan that he obtained primarily for personal, family, or household use, which was a consumer transaction specified in Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (b), and the borrower resided in Santa Clara County at the time his action commenced, venue was proper in Santa Clara County. The court rejected the lender's argument that the venue provision of § 395, subd. (b), applied only to actions against a consumer defendant, or, alternatively, does not apply where the consumer was the plaintiff and one of the defendants was an individual. A peremptory writ in the first instance was appropriate to correct the trial court's error expeditiously. All procedural requirements for issuance of the writ in the first instance were followed. The applicable principles of the law of venue were well established, the relevant facts were undisputed, and the borrower's entitlement to relief was so obvious that plenary consideration of the issues was unnecessary. Fontaine v. Superior Court, 175 Cal. App. 4th 830 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2009).