Paesano

Paesano v. Superior Court

Good Law
1988 Cal. App. LEXIS 1068·204 Cal. App. 3d 17·250 Cal. Rptr. 842
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 29, 1988C004428California1,026 words

Opinion

Opinion

Puglia, J.

Petitioners are plaintiffs in a civil action pending in respondent superior court in which the real party in interest, County of Mono (county), is a defendant. That court denied petitioners’ motion for change of venue and they now seek a writ of mandate directing the court to vacate its order of denial and grant the motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 400; all subsequent statutory references to sections of an undesignated code are to the Code of Civil Procedure.) The issue in this proceeding is whether section 394, a mandatory removal provision, takes precedence over section 397, a discretionary removal provision. We shall hold that it does not. We shall therefore order a writ of mandate to issue directing respondent court to consider and rule on petitioners’ motion to change venue on grounds there is “reason to believe that an impartial trial cannot be had” in Mono County. (§ 397, subd. 2.)

On November 23, 1982, petitioners commenced an action in Mono Superior Court for wrongful death and premises liability against the county, the State of California and fictitious defendants. In a form complaint petitioners allege their son died in an automobile accident which occurred in Mono…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.