Motion for Change of Venue
34-2023-00333705-CU-BC-GDS: Naeim Zamani Mahfroujaki, individually, and as a derivative action vs. Zoom, Inc., a California corporation 04/11/2025 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 47
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE: If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance.
The motion of Defendant/Cross-Complainant Seyedmohammad Caranizadeh (Caranizadeh) and Cross-Defendant Kamal Razavi (Razavi) (collectively Movants) for an order transferring Zamani Mahfroujaki v. Zoom, Inc., Placer County Superior Court Case No. S-CV- 0048740 (the Placer Action) to this Court for coordination and consolidation with the instant Sacramento Action is ruled on as follows.
This is Movants second request for an order transferring the Placer Action. In its ruling on the prior motion the Court, the Honorable Jill Talley presiding, found the actions shared common questions of law and fact. However, the Court denied the motion after determining the relative development of the actions outweighed any benefits that would be obtained from consolidation. (See Minute Order, 11/15/2024.) The Court ultimately denied the motion without prejudice to reassertion if trial in the Placer Action were vacated. (Ibid.)
Movants submit evidence trial in the Placer Action was vacated and that the Placer Action has been returned to case management. (Stouder Decl., ¶ 27, Exhs. L-M.) Movants therefore bring this further motion for transfer and consolidation. In addition to the order vacating trial in the Placer Action, Movants indicate a cross-complaint filed by Plaintiff Naeim Zamani Mahfroujaki (Zamani) in the Sacramento Action on November 21, 2025 is a new fact and circumstance warranting a renewed motion. (See id., ¶ 25, Exh. K.)
Zamani filed an opposition indicating Zamani has filed a bankruptcy case and that this action,
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
including the hearing on this motion, are subject to the automatic stay[1]. In response, Movants request the Court continue the hearing 90 days so that Movants may file a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case and lift the stay.
Rather than continuing the hearing, the Court will permit Movants to reschedule the hearing so it may be addressed on its merits after the stay has been lifted. The hearing is DROPPED from calendar. Once the automatic stay is lifted, Movants may contact the clerk of Department 47 to obtain a new hearing date. Sixteen court days before the rescheduled hearing, Movants shall then file and serve and amended notice of motion along with any necessary supplemental papers addressing the effect of any developments in the status of the two cases during the stay.
Opposition and reply papers will be due based on the rescheduled hearing date. This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.
Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules of Court, rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Courts Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.
If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
[1] The Court notes Zamani has not filed a Notice of Stay, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.650, which
must be filed on the mandatory judicial council form CM-180.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00333705-CU-BC-GDS: Naeim Zamani Mahfroujaki, individually, and as a derivative action vs. Zoom, Inc., a California corporation 04/11/2025 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 47