Can an individual who is not a defendant in an action brought in the county where the action was commenced be allowed to change venue?

Hale v. Bohannon, 38 Cal.2d 458, 470, 241 P.2d 4, 11, says concerning this section of the Constitution: 'The constitutional provision 'is of the nature of a Code provision in regard to procedure, and is obviously self-executing, and differs from a statutory Code provision only in that it cannot be repealed, nor can its scope and operation be limited by the statute. So far as it conflicts with a statute, the statute must give way.' [Citations.]' At pages 472-473, 241 P.2d at page 12: 'Where a corporation and an individual are properly joined as defendants and the action is commenced in the county where the corporation has its principal place of business the individual defendant may not have the action moved to the county of his residence, if different, for trial. [Citation.] In such circumstances, under the terms of section 395, [206 Cal.App.2d 404] the residence of the corporation is the county where it has its principal place of business. [Citation.] This application of section 395 now is well settled. [Citations.] * * * A suit brought in the county where the corporation has its principal place of business is one commenced in a proper county under the constitutional provision. The individual defendant joined with the corporation may not secure a change of venue in such circumstances because, under section 395, 'some' of the defendants reside in the county where the action was commenced.' This is but an application of the general rule.

Page 666