Williams v. Super. Ct.

BACKGROUND

Williams and her husband hired Fautt, a general contractor, to build their home in Pleasanton. The Williams’s eventually parted ways with Fautt, resulting in highly contentious e-mail and phone communications on numerous issues, including Fautt’s entry onto the property to retrieve his tools and equipment. Williams fired off these communications from either her home in Pleasanton (in Alameda County) or her husband’s office in Modesto (in Stanislaus County). Fautt filed the instant civil harassment action in Contra Costa County and sought and obtained the same day an ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO) against Williams. Williams disputes Fautt’s allegations and the need for any immediate injunctive relief. Williams timely moved to change venue to Alameda County, her county of residence. She also sought to “void” the TRO on the grounds it was issued in the absence of proper venue and was “based on perjured testimony.” As Williams pointed out, the civil harassment statute, itself, does not contain any provisions pertaining to venue. (§ 527.6.) She therefore maintained the general venue statute, section 395, subdivision (a) governed and under that statute venue is…