Fontaine

Fontaine v. Superior Court

Good Law
175 Cal. App. 4th 830·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1102·96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 607
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 10, 2009H033811California4,031 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bamattre-Manoukian, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Paul Fontaine obtained a loan for personal, family or household use from real party in interest CashCall, Inc. (hereafter CashCall). After CashCall attempted to collect the debt, Fontaine filed a complaint in Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging that the collection methods used by CashCall and four of its employees violated the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civ. Code, § 1788 et seq.). CashCall responded by bringing a motion to transfer the action to Orange County Superior Court on the ground that individual defendant Richard Vargas, a resident of Orange County, had requested that the case be tried there. The trial court granted the motion and ordered the action transferred to Orange County Superior Court.

Fontaine seeks extraordinary relief from the trial court’s order, arguing that venue is proper in Santa Clara County pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 395, subdivision (b) because he resides in Santa Clara County and the action arises from a consumer loan. For the reasons stated below, we agree and therefore we will issue a peremptory writ in the first instance vacating the trial court’s order.

n. FACTUAL AND…

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.