Jessica Madrid vs JS Audit Group Inc

Case Number

25CV01340

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 09/29/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Case Management Conference; Motion: Compel Arbitration

Tentative Ruling

Jessica Madrid v. JS Audit Group Inc. 

Case No. 25CV01340

           

Hearing Date: September 29, 2025                                                   

HEARING:              Motion of Defendant to Compel Arbitration

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiff Jessica Madrid: Jonathan D. Roven, Britanie A. Crippen, Jonny Law, PC

                                    For Defendant JS Audit Group Inc.: Charles P. Hamamjian, Daniella M. Crisanti, Sagaser, Watkins & Wieland PC

                                   

TENTATIVE RULING:

As explained herein, this matter appears to be improperly venued in “South County” (Santa Barbara). The court will order this matter transferred to “North County” (Santa Maria) unless the parties appear at the hearing of this motion and show cause why transfer should not be made. The hearing on the motion to compel arbitration will be reset following disposition of the venue issue.

On March 3, 2025, plaintiff Jessica Madrid filed her complaint in this action against defendant JS Audit Group Inc. (JS) asserting nine causes of action: (1) discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12940 et seq.); (2) violation of the Pregnancy Disability Leave Act (Gov. Code, § 12945); (3) failure to provide reasonable accommodation under FEHA; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process under FEHA; (5) retaliation under FEHA; (6) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination, and retaliation under FEHA; (7) wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (8) retaliation for exercising rights under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA, Gov. Code, § 12945.2); and (9) violation of the CFRA.

In filing the complaint, plaintiff failed to file the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum required by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 1310. The Addendum addresses venue.

“For the purpose of these local rules, it shall be assumed that Santa Barbara County has been divided geographically into two separate regions hereinafter referred to as ‘South County’ and ‘North County.’ ” (Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 201.)

The general venue rule in Santa Barbara County is: “When, under California law, ‘North County’ would be a ‘proper county’ for venue purposes, all filings for such matters shall be in the appropriate division of the Clerk’s office in North County. All other filings shall be made in the Clerk’s office in the appropriate division of the Court in South County.” (Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 201(a).)

“In electronic filings, the party making the filing shall designate the appropriate division of the Court based upon subdivisions (a) and (b) of this rule. The title of the Court required to be placed on the first page of documents pursuant to CRC 2.111 includes the name of the appropriate Court division. Any filing erroneously made in a division of the Court may be transferred to the appropriate division upon motion of any party or on the court’s own motion.” (Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 201(a).)

The general rule of venue under California law is “in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a).) The specific venue rule in the case of FEHA actions is:

“An action may be brought in any county in the state in which the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed, in the county in which the records relevant to the practice are maintained and administered, or in the county in which the aggrieved person would have worked or would have had access to the public accommodation but for the alleged unlawful practice….” (Gov. Code, § 12965, subd. (c)(3).)

The court notes that the proof of service of the complaint filed with the court on March 6, 2025, states that the complaint was personally served on the defendant in Santa Maria, in the North County. The court has not identified anything in the court’s file connecting this action to Santa Barbara (South County). This information would have appeared in the Addendum that plaintiff failed to file.

Because it appears likely that the proper venue for this action within Santa Barbara County is in the North County and will be ordered transferred there unless the parties appear at the hearing on this motion show cause why this matter should not be transferred to the North County.

The hearing on the motion to compel arbitration will be reset based upon the disposition of transfer.