BRYANT vs OFFICER B. SHARP BADGE #23032 OF TORRENCE POLICE DEPT., et al.

26WM000094: BRYANT vs OFFICER B. SHARP BADGE #23032 OF TORRENCE POLICE DEPT., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to transfer venue in Department 3A

Tentative Ruling

DATE/TIME: September 3, 2026, 2:30 p.m. DEP. NO.: 3A JUDGE: HON. JENNIFER K. CLERK: S. PAUL ROCKWELL

MARYLYN BRYANT, Case No.: 26WM000094 Petitioner, v. OFFICER B. SHARP, BADGE # 23032 OF TORRANCE POLICE DEPT., ET AL. Respondents.

Nature of Proceedings: Motion to Transfer Venue

The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on the above matter, set for hearing in Department 3A, on Thursday, September 3, 2026, at 2:30 p.m. The tentative ruling shall become the ruling of the Court, unless a party desiring to be heard so advises the Clerk of Department 3A no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the Clerk that such party has notified the other side of its intention to appear.

The Court strongly encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. However, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing.

The parties may join the Zoom session for the hearing by audio and/or video through the following link:

26WM000094: BRYANT vs OFFICER B. SHARP BADGE #23032 OF TORRENCE POLICE DEPT., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to transfer venue in Department 3A

DEPT JUDGE ZOOM LINK MEETING ID

3A Hon. Jennifer K. https://saccourt-ca- 161 5277 4854 Rockwell gov.zoomgov.com/j/16152774854

Parties requesting services of a Court Reporter will need to arrange for private Court Reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code § 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 using the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore, available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

If a Court Reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list is not used, aStipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing. Once the form is signed, it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 3A.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 69959, Court Reporters are not permitted through the use of remote technology, and any Court Reporter designated for the hearing shall be physically present in the Courtroom.

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 of Department 3A 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 of Department 3A will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official Court Reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

The notice of motion does not provide the required notice of the court's tentative ruling system pursuant as required by Local Rule 1.06. Local Rule 1.06(D) sets forth specific language that must be included in the tentative ruling notice. Moving counsel is directed to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000094: BRYANT vs OFFICER B. SHARP BADGE #23032 OF TORRENCE POLICE DEPT., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to transfer venue in Department 3A

contact the opposing party forthwith and advise them of Local Rule 1.06 and the court's tentative ruling procedure and the manner of requesting a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact the opposing party prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

Introduction

Respondent Department of Motor Vehicles (hereafter, Department), erroneously sued as “California DMV,” moves to transfer the venue of this action from Sacramento County to Los Angeles County. Because the events giving rise to the claims alleged in the Petition occurred in Los Angeles County, that county is the proper venue for this action against public officers and agencies. (Code Civ. Proc. § 393, subd. (b).) The motion will be granted, as discussed further herein.

Background

Petitioner Marilyn Bryant filed the petition initiating this action on April 1, 2026.[1] She purports to seek relief under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 and 1094.5. (Petition [Pet.] caption page.)

Although Petitioner’s specific claims are difficult to discern, they appear to arise from a November 20, 2024, traffic stop by officers with the Torrance Police Department. (Pet. 2:13- 3:14.) Petitioner alleges that the officers directed her to go to the Department’s office for a written test, an eye test, and a driving test. (Pet. 3:16-22.) Petitioner alleges that although she completed the written and eye tests, staff at the Torrance DMV office “refused to do the driving test and gave no reason why.” (Pet. 3:17-23.) Petitioner also alleges she was unable to complete a “DMV Physical.” (Pet. 3:22-26.)

Sometime later, Petitioner alleges she was driving “back to Los Angeles from Northern California,” but was stopped by a “CHP car.” (Pet. 4:2-5.) Petitioner alleges that a CHP officer told Petitioner that her California Drivers License was suspended, and her vehicle was towed. (Pet. 4:13-17.) Petitioner further alleges she “was forced out of [her] vehicle and kidnapped by two men plain clothes in unmarked van [sic],” that her vehicle “containing private belongings is still missing now and all of my belongings.” (Pet. 4:16-22.)

Petitioner seeks “an Order reinstating my Drivers License and return of my property[.]” (4:28.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000094: BRYANT vs OFFICER B. SHARP BADGE #23032 OF TORRENCE POLICE DEPT., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to transfer venue in Department 3A

Discussion

The Department moves to transfer venue on the grounds that under Code of Civil Procedure section 393, subdivision (b), the proper county for trial of this action is Los Angeles County, which is “the county in which the cause, or some part of the cause, arose[.]” (Code Civ. Proc. § 393, subd. (b).)

Petitioner appears to oppose the motion. In a filing titled “Re: CA Venue Rule: Code of Civil Procedure Sect. 395,” Petitioner argues that venue is proper in the county where the defendants, or some of them, reside. Petitioner appears to contend that because the Department and its counsel, the California Attorney General, maintain offices in Sacramento, that is their county of residence for venue purposes, and thus venue is proper in Sacramento County.

While Petitioner is correct that in general, venue is proper in the county where the defendants reside, this rule applies “unless the action falls within some exception to the general venue rule.” (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 483.) “[Code of Civil Procedure] Section 393(b) provides an exception to the ordinary venue provisions as to actions against ‘public officers’[.]” (California State Parks Foundation v. Superior Court (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 826, 833.) Furthermore, “Section 393(b) covers writ proceedings against state officials and agencies; e.g. mandamus, prohibition, or injunction.” (Id. at p. 834.)

Here, the respondents are named as follows: Officer B. Sharp, Badge #23032 of Torrance Police Dept.; Louis Rocha of DMV “good driver office,” Segunda, CA; California DMV State of California; Officer Haug Badge Serial #628; Danny Tran and Performance Towing & Repair. Petitioner purports to seek a writ of mandate directing the Department reinstating her Drivers License. The action is therefore a writ proceeding against public officials, including state officials and agencies, and is subject to Code of Civil Procedure section 393, subdivision (b).

Petitioner does not appear to dispute that the cause of action, or part of it, arose in Los Angeles County. “The cause of action ‘arises’ wherever the plaintiff would be injured by the state action complained of[.]” (California State Parks Foundation v. Superior Court, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at p. 834.) Here, as the Department argues, the acts Petitioner alleges the Department and its employees took occurred in Torrance and El Segundo, located in Los Angeles County.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000094: BRYANT vs OFFICER B. SHARP BADGE #23032 OF TORRENCE POLICE DEPT., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to transfer venue in Department 3A

The motion to transfer venue to Los Angeles County will be granted.

Attorney Fees

The Department also seeks an award of $2,166 in attorney fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 396b, subdivision (b). This provision authorizes the court to exercise its discretion to “order the payment to the prevailing party of reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees incurred in making or resisting the motion to transfer[.]” (Code Civ. Proc. § 396b, subd. (b).) This section specifies, however, “As between the party and his or her attorney, those expenses and fees shall be the personal liability of the attorney not chargeable to the party.” (Ibid.)

Here, Petitioner is proceeding in pro per. As Code of Civil Procedure section 396b, subdivision (b) authorizes a fee award only against an attorney, there appears to be no basis to award the Department its fees in making the instant motion.[2]

Disposition

The Motion to Transfer Venue from Sacramento County to Los Angeles County is granted. The Department’s request for an attorney fee award is denied.

The Department shall prepare a formal order consistent with this ruling that attaches this ruling as an exhibit, submit it to the opposing party for approval as to form, and thereafter submit it to the Court for signature in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

[1] Petitioner filed a second Petition on August 10, 2026, which states “Updated: 07/28/2026” on

the caption page. Petitioner did not seek leave to amend the petition, which was filed after the Department filed the instant motion. Further, Department filed the instant motion on June 17, 2026, which operated as a stay of the action until the disposition of the motion to change venue. (South Sutter, LLC v. LJ Sutter Partners, L.P. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 634, 655 [“A motion to change venue operates as a supersedeas or stay of proceedings”], citing Pickwick Stages System v. Superior Court (1934) 138 Cal.App.448, 448.) Accordingly, the Court does not consider the second “updated” petition here.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26WM000094: BRYANT vs OFFICER B. SHARP BADGE #23032 OF TORRENCE POLICE DEPT., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to transfer venue in Department 3A [2] The Department appears to concede as much, as it states in its memorandum it requests

“attorneys’ fees against counsel for Petitioner.” (Opening Mem. 12:6-7.)