STRAW vs STRAN LOYALTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al.

26CV003601: STRAW vs STRAN LOYALTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 17A

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 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. 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 17A at (916) 874- 5487 for assistance.

Please take notice that effective April 13, 2026, the Presiding Judge Law & Motion calendar has been moved to Department 17A at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse, the Honorable Lawrence G. Brown presiding. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Hon. Lawrence G. Brown Department 17A 916-874-5487 dept17A@saccourt.ca.gov ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

This matter was continued from June 26, 2026, to allow time for the Court to consider Plaintiff Kailan Straw’s (“Plaintiff”) opposition brief, which was mistakenly filed in the wrong action and to allow the moving party, Defendant Stran Loyalty Solutions, LLC (“Stran”), to file a reply brief.

Having now considered Plaintiff’s opposition and Stran’s reply, the Court rules on Stran’s motion to transfer venue to Orange County, California as follows.

*** The notice of motion fails to provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judge’s department. (See Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D).) Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and/or self-represented litigants and

26CV003601: STRAW vs STRAN LOYALTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 17A

advise them of Local Rule 1.05, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing parties prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or by telephone. ***

This is a wage and hour action arising out of Plaintiff’s former employment with Stran, a Nevada Limited Liability Company. Stran moves for an order transferring this case to Orange County, California on the basis that paragraph 18 of the written contract governing the parties’ relationship contains a mandatory venue clause. Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff’s Employment Agreement provides in pertinent part: “The parties hereto expressly consent to venue in Orange County, California.” (Decl. of Bruce Batcheller ISO Mot. ¶¶ 2, 3; Ex. A.)

Plaintiff opposes the motion, rejoining that the subject clause is permissive, and Stran has made no showing under the applicable permissive standard.

The authorities Plaintiff cites in support of its opposition concern motions to stay or dismiss an action on the ground of inconvenient forum under Code of Civil Procedure sections 410.30, subdivision (a), and 418.10, subdivision (a). Such motions concern the selection of a court from among different states or nations. (Alexander v. Superior Court (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 723, 726-727.) Whereas, venue is an intrastate issue involving the selection of a county in which to hold the trial. (Ibid.) Therefore, Plaintiff’s cited authorities are inapplicable to the Court’s decision on the instant motion. However, the Court finds that Stran has not met its burden of showing that Sacramento is an improper venue in this case.

“The court may, on timely motion, order transfer of an action ‘[w]hen the court designated in the complaint is not the proper court.’” (Fontaine v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 836 [quoting Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 397, subd. (a), 396a, subd. (b)].) “The moving party must overcome the presumption that the plaintiff has selected the proper venue. [Citation.] Thus, ‘[i]t is the moving defendant’s burden to demonstrate that the plaintiff’s venue selection is not proper under any of the statutory grounds.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)

“Venue of transitory actions against corporations is governed by [Code of Civil Procedure] section 395.5. That section provides, ‘A corporation or association may be sued in the county [1] where the contract is made or [2] is to be performed, or [3] where the obligation or liability arises, or [4] the breach occurs; or [5] in the county where the principal place of business of such corporation is situated, subject to the power of the court to change the place of trial as in other cases [see § 397].’” (Mission Imports, Inc. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 921, 927-928.) “Although the section appears to be addressing actions sounding in contract, it has long been

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV003601: STRAW vs STRAN LOYALTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 17A

settled that it governs actions sounding in tort as well.” (Id. at p. 928.) “The purpose of the section is to permit a wider choice of venue in suits against a corporation than is permitted in suits against an individual defendant. [Citation.] If venue in a county other than the corporation’s principal place of business (i.e., “residence”) is proper, the corporation has no standing to move for a transfer to its principal place of business.” (Ibid.) “‘Moreover, in the absence of an affirmative showing to the contrary, the presumption is that the county in which the title of the action shows that it is brought is, prima facie, the proper county for the commencement and trial of the action. [Citations.]’[Citations.]”

In this case, Stran, as the moving party, does not address any of the proper venues under Code of Civil Procedure section 395.5. Rather, Stran argues only that Plaintiff’s employment agreement contains a mandatory venue provision, which requires the action to be tried in Orange County, California.

In Battaglia Enterprises, Inc. v. Superior Court (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 309, the Court of Appeal held that a contractual venue agreement can be given effect so long as the designated venue is one of the statutorily permitted counties. But again, Stran’s moving papers do not discuss the applicable venue statute at all. Accordingly, Stran fails to meet its burden to establish the facts needed to justify transfer.

The Court declines to consider new arguments and evidence Stran provides in its reply. “To withhold a point until the closing brief deprives the [opposing party] of the opportunity to answer it or requires the effort and delay of an additional brief by permission.” (Campos v. Anderson (1997) 57 Cal.App.5th 784, 794, fn. 3.)

For the stated reasons, Stran’s motion to transfer venue is denied.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

*** This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. 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 court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV003601: STRAW vs STRAN LOYALTY SOLUTIONS, LLC, et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Change of Venue in Department 17A

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 Court’s 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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided. ***