Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District v. Superior Court

Good Law
125 Cal. App. 4th 177·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 2217·2004 Daily Journal DAR 15203·22 Cal. Rptr. 3d 558·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11283
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 23, 2004C047257California2,468 words

Opinion

Opinion

Raye, J.

The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (Golden Gate) seeks a peremptory writ of mandate compelling a change of venue pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 394, subdivision (a) (hereafter section 394(a)). Upon consideration of the petition and preliminary opposition filed by real party in interest R&B Protective Coatings, Inc. (R&B), we issued a Palma notice (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 180 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 626 , 681 P.2d 893 ]), advising the parties that we were considering issuing a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance and allowing a final opportunity to submit any opposition. R&B filed opposition and a request for judicial notice. We grant the request for judicial notice. We conclude that the issue presented is strictly a question of law and that a change of venue is mandatory. We therefore direct the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate.

BACKGROUND

The relevant background facts are not in dispute here. Golden Gate entered into a contract with Balfour Beatty Construction, Inc. (Balfour Beatty), for a seismic retrofit project. Balfour Beatty entered into a contract with R&B to provide paint…

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.