You don't see too many venue cases in the Court of Appeal. But here's one.
For good reason, too. Here's a case where the defendant (smartly) moves to change venue -- from Santa Clara to Orange County -- not only to get a better jury pool, but principally to make it a monster hassle for plaintiff and his lawyers. Who wants to do a tiny debt collection case 500 miles away from home?
Smart. Especially if you win the motion. Which the defendant indeed does in the trial court.
But that's why we have writs. Including the one granted here, which reverses the decision below.
I think the decision is both equitable and right on the law. You gotta sue a consumer debtor in his venue. And if you harass him about his consumer debt, you better be prepared to confront litigation in the same place.
Seems right to me.