Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.
21 Cal. App. 5th 872
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Plaintiffs (Galvan, Mumma, Patsalos) sued Disney in Los Angeles Superior Court for claims arising from Disneyland visits and alleged venue-selection clauses designating Orange County.
- Disney answered, removed to federal court on diversity grounds, and after remand filed a motion to change venue on April 17, 2017 relying on Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 396b(a) and 397(a).
- Plaintiffs opposed as untimely and contended Disney resided in Los Angeles; the superior court denied Disney’s motion on timeliness/waiver grounds without a reporter's transcript.
- The superior court held that failure to satisfy § 396b timing waived any relief under § 397; it did not make a factual waiver finding.
- Disney petitioned for a writ of mandate; the Court of Appeal reviewed de novo and concluded the trial court erred, ordering reconsideration on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Disney's motion to change venue was time-barred | Motion untimely under §396b; therefore barred | Removal and remand tolled/extended time; §397 relief not subject to §396b timing | Court of Appeal: motion was not barred as a matter of law; trial court erred |
| Whether failing to meet §396b timing automatically waives relief under §397 | Failure to comply with §396b effects waiver of §397 relief | §397 is discretionary and independent; waiver is a factual question | Waiver is not automatic; must be shown on the facts; no waiver here |
| Proper method of statutory construction when two related provisions differ | Not argued with authority by plaintiffs | Different statutory language signals different legislative intent; cannot import §396b limits into §397 | Court of Appeal: interpret provisions according to language; cannot read §396b timing into §397 |
| Standard of review for trial court's timeliness/waiver ruling | N/A | De novo review appropriate because court decided question of law on undisputed facts | De novo review applied and reversal ordered |
Key Cases Cited
- Willingham v. Pecora, 44 Cal.App.2d 289 (trial court discretion on venue motions; timeliness considered in context)
- Lyons v. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co., 20 Cal.2d 579 (liberal construction of §396b; waiver ordinarily a factual question)
- Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc. v. Superior Court, 80 Cal.App.4th 948 (de novo review for legal questions about venue transfer)
- Dow AgroSciences LLC v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.App.5th 1067 (de novo review where statute applied to undisputed facts)
- Van Gaalen v. Superior Court, 80 Cal.App.3d 371 (time limit in §396b not jurisdictional; court retains power to entertain untimely motion)