This decision holds that in a suit for violation of Prop. 65 (H&S Code 25249.5 et seq.) and seeking civil penalties and an injunction is a suit for a statutory penalty or forfeiture.  When the complaint alleges only a Prop. 65 claim, the proper venue for the action is governed by CCP 393(a), which states that actions for statutory penalties and forfeitures are to be brought in the county in which the cause of action (or some of it) arose.  The particular venue specified in CCP 393 prevails over the general venue statute, CCP 395, which allows suit were the defendant resides, or in any county if the defendant does not reside in California.  The “main relief” and “local v. transitory” doctrines which are used to decide the proper venue for mixed actions involving some real property claims governed by CCP 392 do not apply when the question is application of CCP 393.

 California Court of Appeal, First District, Division Four (Ruvolo, J.); November 6, 2017; 224 Cal.Rptr.3d 761.