In Dunn-Edwards Corp. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (1992) 9 Cal. App. 4th 644 11 Cal. Rptr. 2d 850 (Dunn-Edwards), the court held that after a change of venue, the petitioner is excused from timely requesting a hearing if the trial court fails to give the statutorily required notice that the case has been transferred. (Dunn-Edwards, supra, 9 Cal. App. 4th at p. 652.) In Dunn-Edwards, the case was transferred from Los Angeles to San Francisco. However, the Los Angeles Superior Court did not mail notice that the papers and pleadings had been transmitted, and the San Francisco Superior Court did not mail notice that the case had been filed and assigned a number, both of which notices are required by Code of Civil Procedure section 399. (Dunn-Edwards, supra, 9 Cal. App. 4th at p. 652.) The San Francisco court denied a motion to dismiss under Public Resources Code section 21167.4. (9 Cal. App. 4th at p. 651.) The Court upheld that ruling, stating: "Although section 21167.4 was intended to avoid delays in litigation citation, the rule must be relaxed where there is uncertainty concerning the forum in which the case is to be tried. We agree with plaintiffs that where the plaintiff initiates the filing of an original petition, the plaintiff knows with certainty the date of filing and can perform his duty under section 21167.4 to notice a hearing. However, with a transferred case, because the court initiates the filing, only after a plaintiff receives notice of the event of filing is it required to fulfill its duty to request a hearing. Notice, as is required under Code of Civil Procedure section 399, is the condition precedent to the duty." (Dunn-Edwards, supra, 9 Cal. App. 4th at p. 652.)