Richfield Hotel Management, Inc. v. Superior Court

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 88·22 Cal. App. 4th 222·27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 161·94 Daily Journal DAR 1525·64 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 219
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 4, 1994A063629California1,764 words

Opinion

Opinion

Anderson, J.

respondent superior court in which real parties in interest are plaintiffs. Respondent court denied petitioner’s motion for change of venue and petitioner now seeks 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 Government Code section 12965, subdivision (b), the venue statute of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), precludes a change of venue for the convenience of witnesses pursuant to section 397, former subdivision (3). We hold that it does not and that petitioner was entitled to a change of venue on this ground.

On March 15, 1993, real parties in interest filed suit in San Mateo County Superior Court alleging that, while working at the Radisson Hotel Visalia (Hotel), they were sexually harassed by a Hotel employee. Petitioner, as manager of the Hotel, was named as a defendant. The complaint alleges claims under FEHA as well as a common law claim for wrongful constructive termination.

On August 18, 1993, petitioner moved to change venue to Tulare…

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.