Legal Question in Business Law in California

Often there are several different courts with jurisdiction over a given dispute. Each of those courts is a venue. There are rules which will often say that some venues are improper in a given case, or at least that favor some over others. When that happens, the case usually must be dismissed in the original venue and then refiled in another.

Mr. Hoffman is mostly correct, however, improper venue rarely requires dismissal and refiling.

In simple terms "venue" is a court location. It differs from and is generally more specific than jurisdiction. For most purposes California is a single jurisdiction, and if California has jurisdiction over a case and the parties, any court in the state has jurisdiction, but it may not be the right venue, i.e., location, for the case to be filed and to proceed.

There are a large number of rules and statutes that govern what court location is the proper one for filing and proceeding with a lawsuit. Which rules apply depends on the nature of the case and the causes of action involved. In divorce cases involving children, the children's county of residence for the most recent four months is the proper venue. In some cases there is more than one proper venue and the plaintiff can choose. In breach of contract cases, venue is proper where the contract was formed, where it was to be performed or where any of the defendants resides. In civil actions by or against cities, venue is proper in ANY reasonably convenient county OTHER than the county in which the city is located, although if a plaintiff sues a city in the county in which the city is located, the plaintiff waives the defective venue.

For many purposes venue simply means any of the court locations in a particular county. If there are local venue rules, however, it may mean a particular courthouse in the county. In sum, you could write whole books about the rules of venue.

If the plaintiff chooses an improper venue, the defendant must object or the case goes forward in that venue anyway. If the objection is well taken the plaintiff CAN dismiss and refile, and often that is simpler and cleaner than dealing with a motion to change venue. If a statute of limitations has run, however, or there are other impairments to dismissing and refiling, the proper practice is a motion to transfer venue. Even if venue is technically proper, a defendant can file a motion to change venue based on fairness or significant inconvenience. That is why you hear about change of venue motions in high profile criminal cases. It can happen in civil cases as well, however. For example if all the key witnesses live in San Francisco, even if venue is proper in San Diego, a defendant may be able to successfully move to transfer venue to San Francisco.

The only situation in which I can think of that dismissal and refiling would be mandatory would be if there were no proper venue in the entire jurisdiction. It is highly uncommon, but occasionally occurs that California courts have jurisdiction, but there is no proper venue in California. In that case the California courts have no power to order the case transferred to a proper venue, and the case would have to be dismissed and refiled in the other jurisdiction.

Actually, if the defendant raises an issue of venue, the case is transferred to the other county, not dismissed. On timely motion, the court must order a transfer of an action "whenever the court desgnated in the complaint is not the proper court." (Code Civ. Proc., sect 396b, 397 subd. (a).)

Is there more to be said? Mr. Roach is not quite correct in expressing what might be the closing statement on an issue pretty well covered by Mr. McCormick. "If a defendant raises an issue of venue" (by making a timely motion) the case is transferred to the other county if the judge hearing the motion agrees. Probably half of improper-venue motions are overruled.

Improper venue if raised will cause the lawsuit to be transferred to the proper venue.