§Why CasetextPricing

Mitchell Jones vs. Pacific Medical & Rehabilitation, Inc.

Motion for Change of Venue

7 Cited authorities

  1. Brown v. Superior Court

    37 Cal.3d 477 (Cal. 1984)   Cited 103 times
    Holding FEHA special venue provisions govern as to all claims brought in a FEHA case

  2. Edwards v. Pierson

    156 Cal.App.2d 72 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957)   Cited 11 times
    In Edwards v. Pierson (1957) 156 Cal.App.2d 72, 75 [ 318 P.2d 789], the court stated: "The burden rests upon one who seeks a change of venue under Code of Civil Procedure, section 397, subdivision 3, to prove that both the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice will be promoted thereby. [Citations.] This he must do through affidavits which contain something more than generalities and conclusions.

  3. Maxwell v. Murray

    190 Cal.App.2d 440 (Cal. Ct. App. 1961)   Cited 7 times
    In Maxwell v. Murray (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 440, 445 [ 11 Cal.Rptr. 916], the court said that in Juneau v. Juneau (1941) 45 Cal.App.2d 14, 17 [ 113 P.2d 463], it had set forth "the requirements for affidavits supporting venue in counties other than defendant's home for convenience of the witnesses.

  4. Cooney v. Cooney

    25 Cal.2d 202 (Cal. 1944)   Cited 22 times

    Docket No. L.A. 18720. November 17, 1944. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Bernardino County directing retransfer of divorce action to superior court of county in which the action was filed. Benjamin F. Warmer, Judge. Reversed with directions. W.H. Weddell and Martin J. Coughlin for Appellant. F.J. Root, in pro. per., for Respondent. CARTER, J. Plaintiff and defendant are husband and wife and have four minor children consisting of two sons, Ernest and Jack; and two daughters, June

  5. Mills v. Dickson

    129 Cal.App. 728 (Cal. Ct. App. 1933)   Cited 5 times

    Docket No. 4791. February 20, 1933. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Sonoma County denying motion for change of place of trial. Hilliard Comstock, Judge. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. Sidney Rhein and Frank Orwitz for Appellants. A.W. Hollingsworth and L.R. Lambert for Respondent. PULLEN, P.J. This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a change of place of trial from the county of Sonoma to the city and county of San Francisco. The motion is made

  6. Section 395 - Action for injury to person or personal property or death from wrongful act or negligence; offer or provision of goods, services, loans or extension of credit for family or household use

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 395   Cited 471 times
    Assuming that that section applies to corporations

  7. Section 397 - Grounds for changing place of trial on motion

    Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 397   Cited 184 times

    The court may, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases: (a) When the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court. (b) When there is reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had therein. (c) When the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change. (d) When from any cause there is no judge of the court qualified to act. (e) When a proceeding for dissolution of marriage has been filed in the county in which the petitioner