Marriage of Zayas-Alvarez and Alvarez-Cabanillas CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D085337 · 2025-12-23 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. 22FL002438S
Trial judge: Sherry Thompson-Taylor
Outcome: dismissed — Appeal dismissed.
Area: family
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), Truc T. Do, Buchanan

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T02:43Z · confidence high

The trial court denied the appellant's request to transfer venue from the South County Division to the Central Division of San Diego County Superior Court. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, determining that an order denying a motion to transfer venue is not appealable and must be reviewed via a writ of mandate, which the appellant failed to properly initiate or support with an adequate record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of request to transfer venue “an order denying transfer of venue is not an appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court correctly identified that the trial court's order was not subject to direct appeal under California law. Because the appellant filed a notice of appeal rather than a petition for writ of mandate, and failed to provide the necessary record (transcript and RFO) to support a discretionary writ review, the dismissal was the only available procedural outcome. The court's reliance on the lack of an adequate record further supports the dismissal even if the writ route were considered.

Authorities

relied: K.R.L. Partnership v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 490 — An order granting or denying a motion to transfer venue is reviewable only by petition for writ of mandate, not by appeal.
relied: Calhoun v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 39 — Orders denying transfer of venue are not made appealable by statute or by the 'clearly mandated' exceptions to the one final judgment rule.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound because it correctly applies the established rule that venue transfer orders are non-appealable and requires a writ of mandate for review. It also correctly notes the futility of converting the appeal to a writ due to the appellant's failure to provide a sufficient record, including the transcript and the underlying request for order.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:29Z · confidence low

The trial court denied Alvarez-Cabanillas's request to transfer the dissolution proceeding from the San Diego Superior Court's South County Division to its Central Division, finding no good cause. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal, holding that an order denying transfer of venue is not appealable and is reviewable only by writ of mandate, and declining to treat the appeal as a writ petition given the absence of unusual circumstances and an inadequate record.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of request for order transferring venue from the South County Division to the Central Division for lack of good cause “After a hearing held on September 19, 2024, the trial court issued an order on October 15, 2024, in which it denied the request to transfer venue, finding no good cause to do so.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court never reached the merits; it held the order nonappealable under Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 and the authorities cited, and declined to exercise its discretion under Calhoun to treat the appeal as a writ petition because no unusual circumstances existed and the appellant omitted his moving papers and the hearing transcript from the record. That disposition follows settled law that venue rulings are reviewed by writ, and the appellant bore the burden of furnishing an adequate record. The court did not address whether an intra-county transfer between divisions is technically a 'venue' ruling, but the order would be an interlocutory, nonappealable order under any characterization, so the result is unaffected.

Authorities

relied: K.R.L. Partnership v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 490 — An order granting or denying a motion to transfer venue is reviewable only by petition for writ of mandate, not by appeal.
relied: Calhoun v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 39 — A venue order is not made appealable by Code of Civil Procedure section 904.1 or any exception to the one final judgment rule; an appellate court may treat an improper appeal as a writ petition only in unusual circumstances.

The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly applied the rule that venue orders are reviewable only by writ of mandate and properly declined to treat the appeal as a writ petition where no unusual circumstances were shown and the appellant failed to provide the moving papers or hearing transcript. The opinion does not discuss whether a transfer between divisions of a single superior court is a true venue motion, but that characterization would not make the interlocutory order appealable, so the omission does not undermine the result.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/23/25 Marriage of Zayas-Alvarez and Alvarez-Cabanillas CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re the Marriage of DULCE MARIA ZAYAS-ALVAREZ AND MIGUEL ALVAREZ-CABANILLAS. D085337 DULCE MARIA ZAYAS-ALVAREZ, Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FL002438S)

MIGUEL ALVAREZ-CABANILLAS,

Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Sherry Thompson-Taylor, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Miguel Agustin Alvarez-Cabanillas, in pro. per., for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

In this marriage dissolution proceeding, Miguel Agustin Alvarez- Cabanillas, a self-represented litigant, appeals from an order denying transfer of venue from the San Diego County Superior Court’s South County Division to that court’s Central Division. As we will explain, an order denying transfer of venue is not an appealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This marriage dissolution proceeding was instituted on March 4, 2022, when Dulce Maria Zayas-Alvarez filed a petition for dissolution against Alvarez-Cabanillas. On March 18, 2024, Alvarez-Cabanillas filed a request for order in which he sought to transfer venue from the San Diego County Superior Court’s South County Division to that court’s Central Division. Alvarez- Cabanillas did not include his request for order in the appellate record, although the existence of that filing is noted in the Register of Actions. After a hearing held on September 19, 2024, the trial court issued an order on October 15, 2024, in which it denied the request to transfer venue, finding no good cause to do so. Alvarez-Cabanillas filed a notice of appeal on December 10, 2024, from the trial court’s October 15, 2024 order. In his appellate brief, Alvarez- Cabanillas argues that the trial court erred in denying his request to transfer venue. He contends venue should have been transferred due to the trial court’s “extreme bias” against him, which would make it impossible for him to receive a “fair proceeding” without a change in venue. Zayas-Alvarez has not filed a respondent’s brief.

2 II. DISCUSSION Alvarez-Cabanillas appeals from an order denying a motion to transfer venue. However, “[a]n order granting or denying a motion to transfer venue is reviewable only by petition for writ of mandate,” not through an appeal. (K.R.L. Partnership v. Superior Court (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 490, 496, fn. 6.) Such an order “is not made appealable by statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1) or by any of the ‘clearly mandated’ exceptions to the one final judgment rule. (Calhoun v. Vallejo City Unified School Dist. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 39, 41–42 (Calhoun).) Further, although we have the discretion to treat an improper appeal as a petition for a writ of mandate in “ ‘unusual circumstances’ ” (Calhoun, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 42), no unusual circumstances are present here, and any attempt to analyze the merits of arguments raised by Alvarez- Cabanillas would be futile because Alvarez-Cabanillas has not provided an adequate record for us to do so. Among other things, the record does not include Alvarez-Cabanillas’s request for an order transferring venue or the reporter’s transcript from the September 19, 2024 hearing. We accordingly dismiss Alvarez-Cabanillas’s appeal.

3 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.

IRION, Acting P. J. WE CONCUR:

DO, J.

BUCHANAN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

K.R.L. Partnership v. Superior Court C045847 · 2004-07-13
Calhoun v. Vallejo City Unified School District A061839 · 1993-11-15