Reported / Citable
Background
The City of Merced, a school district, and other local entities sued the California Department of Fish and Wildlife over flood damage following a January 2023 storm. They alleged that restrictions imposed by the department prevented adequate cleaning and maintenance of waterways, reduced their capacity, and contributed to flooding. Related homeowners, businesses, insurers, and Merced County brought similar claims.
Fish and Wildlife sought to transfer the litigation away from Merced County. It relied on Code of Civil Procedure section 394, which generally protects an outside party from perceived local bias when a city or local agency sues in its own county, and section 397’s impartial-trial provision. The trial court instead applied Government Code section 955.3 and kept the case in Merced.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District denied the department’s writ petition. Section 955.3 expressly permits a city, county, or local agency suing the State of California to try the action where the local plaintiff is situated. Its “notwithstanding any provision of law” clause gives that specific venue rule priority over section 394, even though section 955.3 does not name section 394 individually.
The statute preserves a narrower protection for the state: before answering, the Attorney General may seek transfer to Sacramento County under section 397. That procedure was not timely invoked here. The court therefore did not need to decide the parties’ remaining disputes about whether the department otherwise satisfied the general venue statutes.
Key Takeaways
- Government Code section 955.3 controls venue when a California local government sues the state.
- The phrase “notwithstanding any provision of law” overrides conflicting general venue rules.
- The Attorney General’s statutory route to seek Sacramento venue must be used before answering.
- Venue analysis should begin with statutes tailored to the parties, not only the general Code of Civil Procedure provisions.
Why It Matters
The published decision gives public-agency lawyers a clear venue roadmap for state-versus-local-government litigation. State defendants cannot assume that section 394 automatically supplies a neutral county; local plaintiffs may litigate at home unless the state properly and timely uses section 955.3’s Sacramento transfer mechanism.