Majority
This is an appeal from an order granting a change of venue from the county of Sacramento to the county of Fresno where the corporate respondent has its principal place of business.
Appellant, in this action, seeks to recover compensation for overtime allegedly worked between 1954 and 1956. In support of its motion for change of venue, respondent filed an affidavit,
Appellant filed no counteraffidavit, but relies in part on certain allegations in his pleading. They are that from 1952 to June of 1956, when he terminated employment with respondent, he was employed by respondent in Sacramento County; that the place for payment of his wages was in Sacramento County; that he was employed on a basis whereby he was paid weekly; that he sues for time worked weekly in excess of 40 hours under the provisions of the “Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938” ( 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.); that the place where overtime should have been paid was Sacramento
Respondent attacks the foregoing allegations of the appellant’s complaint as being no more than legal conclusions which must be disregarded in passing upon the propriety of the order changing venue. We think it unnecessary to discuss this contention. Taken as admitted in all of its parts, the affidavit of respondent will not support the order changing venue. A corporation may be sued in the county where the contract is made or is to be performed, or where the obligation of liability arises, or the breach occurs, or in the county where the principal place of business of the corporation is situated. (Cal. Const., art. XII, § 16.) It is incumbent upon the moving party to show not only the place of its residence or principal place of business, but also that the contract was not made, that it was not to be performed, that the obligation or liability did not arise and that the breach did not occur in the county wherein the venue is originally placed by the filing of plaintiff’s complaint. (Union Oil Co. v. Basalt Rock Co., Inc. 30 Cal.App.2d 317 [ 86 P.2d 139 ], citing Gas Appliance Sales Co. v. W. B. Bastian Mfg. Co., 87 Cal.App. 301 [ 262 P. 452 ]; Lakeside Ditch Co. v. Packwood Canal Co., 50 Cal.App. 296 [ 195 P. 284 ]; Rowe v. Policy Holders Life Ins. Assn., 131 Cal.App. 339 [ 21 P.2d 443 ]. See also Killam v. Riley, 125 Cal.App.2d 394 [ 270 P.2d 544 ].)
We quote the following from Konig v. Associated Almond Growers, 37 Cal.App.2d 360 , 364-365 [ 99 P.2d 678 ]:
“. . . [E]ven if we assume that in the instant ease the only venue laid in the complaint is in the title thereof, ‘the burden is not on the plaintiff to show that such an action was brought in the proper county or that he comes within an exception to the general rule, but the burden is on a corporation defendant to show that the place of filing such an action as this is not the proper county of trial, which may not be done by a showing of residence alone.’ ”
Turning now to the affidavit of respondent’s president to test its sufficiency to support the order appealed from, we find the following: Appellant’s suit is based on a federal statutory liability which requires the payment of additional compensation to an employee whenever the employee is required to work in excess of 40 hours per week. There is no liability to pay the overtime compensation except as and when an excess of 40 hours’ labor per week is performed. Upon
The judgment is reversed.
Schottky, J., and Warne, J. pro tern.,[1] * concurred.
* Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council.
Cases cited
- Union Oil Co. v. Basalt Rock Co. 30 Cal.App.2d 317 p. 826
- Gas Appliance Sales Co. v. W. B. Bastian Manufacturing Co. 87 Cal.App. 301 p. 826
- Lakeside Ditch Co. v. Packwood Canal Co. 50 Cal.App. 296 p. 826
- Rowe v. Policy Holders Life Insurance 131 Cal.App. 339 p. 826
- Killam v. Riley 125 Cal.App.2d 394 p. 826
- Konig v. Associated Almond Growers 37 Cal.App.2d 360 at 364-365 p. 826