Forum and Venue

Problem

Venue and forum non conveniens laws that allow cases to be brought in jurisdictions that have little or no relation to the defendant or the act giving rise to the cause of action facilitate forum shopping.  Forum shopping is a term that describes the actions by some personal injury lawyers of filing their cases in pro-plaintiff jurisdictions, where the fundamental concept of “equal justice under law” does not apply.  ATRA calls these jurisdictions “judicial hellholes.”  

ATRA's Position:

ATRA supports venue reform that requires plaintiffs to bring their cases where they live or where they were injured, or where the defendant’s principal place of business is located.  ATRA supports forum non conveniens reform that ousts a case brought in one jurisdiction where the plaintiff lives elsewhere, the injury arose elsewhere, and the facts of the case and witnesses are located elsewhere. By strengthening the rules governing venue and forum non conveniens, both legislatures (who pass the rules) and courts (who apply the rules) can ensure that the cases are heard in a court that has a logical connection to the claim, rather than a court that will produce the highest award for the plaintiff.  

Opposition Opinion:

The personal injury bar’s argument against venue and forum reform – that a plaintiff should be able to file a lawsuit in the jurisdiction of her choice – fails to address the hardship faced by defendants who are required to appear in courtrooms in jurisdictions with no logical connection to the claim, where the fundamental concept of “equal justice under law” may not apply. 

Venue / Joinder Reform: S.B. 7 (2019)

Missouri|2019

Provides that claims arising out of separate purchases of the

[…]

Provides that claims arising out of separate purchases of the same product or separate incidents involving the same product shall not be joined regardless of whether the claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences with a common question of law or fact. Expressly adopts the holding of State ex rel. Johnson & Johnson v. Burlison, No. SC96704, issued on February 13, 2019, as it relates to joinder and venue. If such terms are just, parties may be dropped, added, or severed by order of the court upon a motion by any party or by the court during any stage of the action. For the purposes of meeting the venue requirement, there is a rebuttable presumption that the principal place of residence for an individual is the county of voter registration at the time of the injury. For an individual whose employment conduct with a corporation is at issue in at least one count in the action, the principal place of residence shall be the corporation’s principal place of residence. When all defendants are nonresidents, proper venue in a non-tort action is any county in this state if there is personal jurisdiction over each defendant, independent of each other defendant. In tort actions where the plaintiff was first injured in Missouri, venue shall be the county where the plaintiff was first injured by the acts or conduct alleged in the action. In tort actions where the plaintiff was injured outside the state of Missouri and the defendant is an individual, venue for that individual plaintiff shall be the county of the defendant’s principal place of residence, which shall be that of his or her employer corporation if any count alleges conduct in the course of employment, or may be in the county of the plaintiff’s principal place of residence if located in Missouri on the date the plaintiff was first injured. If the county where the action is filed is not proper venue, the plaintiff shall be transferred to a county where proper venue can be established. If no such county exists, then the claim shall be dismissed without prejudice. If denied in error, a denial of a motion to transfer venue pursuant to this act is required to be reversed and no finding of prejudice is required for such reversal. For the purposes of meeting the venue requirement, an insurance company resides in the county where it maintains its registered office. A foreign insurance company without a registered office in any county in Missouri shall be deemed to reside in, and be a resident of, Cole County. At any time prior to the commencement of trial, if a plaintiff or defendant is added, removed, or severed from a petition filed in any Missouri court which would have if originally added, removed, or severed from the initial petition, altered the determination of venue, then the judge shall transfer the case to a proper forum upon application of any party. Currently, an order of dismissal in a products liability claim for a defendant whose liability is based solely on his or her status as a seller shall not divest a court of venue or jurisdiction that was proper at the beginning of the action. Further, the defendant seller dismissed in the action shall remain a party to such action for venue and jurisdiction purposes. This act repeals these provisions.

VENUE FOR PENDING CLAIMS (SECTIONS 1 AND 2) The provisions of this act shall apply to any action filed after February 13, 2019. A Missouri resident plaintiff may continue to trial in the venue as filed if the plaintiff has a case pending in a Missouri court as of February 13, 2019, has proper jurisdiction in Missouri, and such case has or had been set at any time prior to February 13, 2019, for a trial date beginning on or before August 28, 2019. For actions pending as of February 13, 2019, a plaintiff whose claim has been found to have no Missouri county in which venue exists may proceed in the Missouri venue where such claim was dismissed without prejudice if the court finds that the claim was filed in the Missouri court within the applicable statute of limitations, has no proper venue in Missouri, and cannot be maintained, as of August 28, 2019, in any other state where the claim may be brought because of applicable statutes of limitations and lack of a savings statute or similar law.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Venue Reform: H.B. 4013 (2018)

West Virginia|2018

Provides that a nonresident of the state may not bring

[…]

Provides that a nonresident of the state may not bring an action in a court of this state unless all or a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claim asserted occurred in this state. It also similarly provides an exception in situations where a nonresident’s claim cannot proceed where the action arose because of the plaintiff’s inability to obtain jurisdiction over the defendant there, unless the action is time-barred there.  In addition, the law provides that in cases in which there are multiple plaintiffs, each plaintiff must independently establish proper venue.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Forum Non Conveniens: H.B. 755 (2005)

Texas|2005

Restored the discretion of trial court judges to dismiss lawsuits

[…]

Restored the discretion of trial court judges to dismiss lawsuits with little or no connection to Texas under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Forum Non Conveniens: S.B. 3 (2005)

Georgia|2005

Allowed courts to dismiss cases with little or no connection

[…]

Allowed courts to dismiss cases with little or no connection to the venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Manufacturers’ Liability for Prescription Drug Warning: S.B. 474 (2011)

West Virginia|2011

Provides a choice of law provision when nonresidents bring an

[…]

Provides a choice of law provision when nonresidents bring an action against the manufacturer or distributor of a prescription drug for inadequate warnings.  Application of the learned intermediary doctrine would be dependent on the law of the state in which the injury occurred.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Venue Reform: H.B. 1618 (2013)

Virginia|2013

Eliminates from the list of Category B venue, the forum

[…]

Eliminates from the list of Category B venue, the forum where the defendant regularly conducts substantial business activity or where such activity was conducted before the defendant’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth.  Category B venue exists where a defendant corporation, partnership, or limited liability company has its principal office or place of business.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Venue Reform: SB 213 (2003).

West Virginia|2003

Provides for stricter parameters for non-residents to establish venue in

[…]

Provides for stricter parameters for non-residents to establish venue in state courts. Specifies that a substantial portion of the cause of action had to have occurred in the state.  Provides that each plaintiff has to establish venue independently.


[hide]

Challenged and Struck Down

Morris v. Crown Equip. Corp., 633 S.E.2d 292 (W. Va.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1096 (2006).

Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine: SB 15 (2005).

Texas|2005

Restores the discretion of trial court judges to dismiss lawsuits

[…]

Restores the discretion of trial court judges to dismiss lawsuits with little or no connection to Texas under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.


[hide]

Venue Reform: HB 4 (2003).

Texas|2003

Provides that every plaintiff must establish venue independently of every

[…]

Provides that every plaintiff must establish venue independently of every other plaintiff.  Mandates dismissal or transfer of any plaintiff who cannot establish venue except upon exception showing.  Provides for interlocutory de novo appellate review of order granting or denying transfer or dismissal.  Contains a forum non conveniens clause that states that the court must decline jurisdiction if there is a better forum for the suit.


[hide]

Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine: SB 220 (1997).

Texas|1997

Restores the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens to allow

[…]

Restores the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens to allow the court to decline to exercise jurisdiction in an action or claim for personal injury or wrongful death that arose outside of the state.


[hide]

Challenged and Upheld

Owens Corning v. Carter, 997 S.W.2d 560 (Tex.).

Venue Reform: SB 32 (1995).

Texas|1995

Allows a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit where the injury

[…]

Allows a plaintiff to bring a lawsuit where the injury occurred, where the defendant resides, or (if none of those apply) where the plaintiff resided when the injury or harm occurred.


[hide]

Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine: SB 2 (1993).

Texas|1993

Reinstates the forum non conveniens doctrine, which permits a court

[…]

Reinstates the forum non conveniens doctrine, which permits a court to decline to hear a case if justice would be better served by trying the case elsewhere.


[hide]

Venue Reform: H.B. 2008/S.B. 1522 (2011); Amended Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-4-104.

Tennessee|2011

Outlines the venues where civil suits can be filed to

[…]

Outlines the venues where civil suits can be filed to include the county where the claim accrued, where the defendant’s principal place of business is located or where the defendant’s registered agent is located.  If the defendant does not have a registered agent in Tennessee, venue is proper in the county where the person designated by statute as the defendant’s agent for service of process is located.  This provision seeks to prevent forum shopping and deviates from current law, under which a business can be sued in any county in which it has an office.


[hide]

Venue Reform: H 3008 (2005).

South Carolina|2005

Specifies that claims can only be brought where the most

[…]

Specifies that claims can only be brought where the most substantial part of the action arose or in the defendant’s principal place of business.  In cases against a non-resident defendant, the action must be brought where the most substantial part of the cause of action occurred, or where the plaintiff resides at the time the action arose.  Civil actions against (i) a domestic corporation or (ii) a foreign corporation required to possess and possessing a certificate of authority from the Secretary of State must be brought and tried in the county where the defendant has its principal place of business at the time the cause of action arose, or where the most substantial part of the cause of action occurred.  Civil actions against a foreign corporation that does not possess a certificate of authority from the Secretary of State must be brought and tried in the county where the most substantial part of the cause of action occurred, or where the plaintiff resides at the time the cause of action arose.


[hide]

Forum non conviens: H.B. 1003 (2013)

Oklahoma|2013

Allows the court, upon a motion by either party or

[…]

Allows the court, upon a motion by either party or on its own, to decline jurisdiction, if in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, an action would be more properly heard in another forum.”  The bill also outlines what the court shall consider in determining whether to grant a motion to stay, transfer or to dismiss an action.


[hide]

Forum non conviens: HB 1603 (2009).

Oklahoma|2009

Allows the court to move a case which should be

[…]

Allows the court to move a case which should be more properly heard somewhere else in the state, thus restricting “forum shopping.”  Held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, June 2013.


[hide]

Challenged and Struck Down

Venue Reform: HB 13 (special session) (2004); Amended Miss. Code Ann. § 11-11-3.

Mississippi|2004

Provides that civil suits may be filed in the county

[…]

Provides that civil suits may be filed in the county where the defendant resides (in the case of a corporation, the county of its principal place of business) or in the county where a “substantial alleged act or omission occurred or where a substantial event that cause the injury occurred.”  Plaintiff may file in the county where he/she lives if venue cannot be established under above criteria.  Provides that venue must be proper for each plaintiff.  Provides that the trial court shall dismiss the claim or action if it would be more properly decided in another state.  If the claim would be more properly decided in another county, provided the case shall be transferred to the appropriate county.  Provides that for medical providers, venue shall be proper where the act or omission occurred.


[hide]

Venue Reform: HB 393 (2005); § 538.232 R.S.Mo.

Missouri|2005

Establishes venue in the county where the plaintiff was first

[…]

Establishes venue in the county where the plaintiff was first injured by the wrongful acts or negligent conduct alleged in all tort actions in which the plaintiff was first injured in Missouri.  Established venue in all tort actions in which the plaintiff was first injured outside Missouri: (a)  For corporate defendants, in any county where the registered agent is located or, if the plaintiff’s principal place of residence was in Missouri when the plaintiff was first injured, in the county of the plaintiff’s principal place of residence on the date the plaintiff was first injured; and (b) for individual defendants, in any county of the defendant’s principal place of residence in Missouri or, if the plaintiff’s principal place of residence was in Missouri when the plaintiff was first injured, in the county containing the plaintiff’s principal place of residence on the date the plaintiff was first injured.  Specified that in wrongful death actions the plaintiff is considered first injured   where the decedent was first injured by the wrongful acts or negligent conduct alleged in the action.  Specified that in a spouse’s claim for loss of consortium the plaintiff claiming consortium is considered first injured where the other spouse was first injured by the wrongful act or negligent conduct alleged in the action.  Specifies that the court must transfer venue to the county unanimously chosen by the parties if all parties agree in writing to a change of venue.  If parties are added after the date of the transfer and they do not consent to the transfer, the cause of action will be transferred to a county in which venue is otherwise appropriate.


[hide]

Venue Reform: SB 3 (2005).

Georgia|2005

In cases involving multiple defendants, if defendants who reside in

[…]

In cases involving multiple defendants, if defendants who reside in the county where the action is pending are discharged from liability, the non-resident defendant may require that the case be transferred to a county or court in which venue would otherwise be proper.  Contains a forum non conveniens clause, which allows courts to dismiss cases with little or no connection to the venue.


[hide]

Venue Reform: HB 792 (2003).

Georgia|2003

Provides that Georgia courts may decline jurisdiction of any civil

[…]

Provides that Georgia courts may decline jurisdiction of any civil causes of a nonresident by considering the following factors: (1) the place of accrual of the cause of action; (2) the location of witnesses; (3) the residence or residences of the parties; (4) whether a litigant is attempting to circumvent the applicable statute of limitations of another state; and (5) the public factor of the convenience to and burden upon the court.


[hide]

Venue Reform: HB 1038 (2003).

Arkansas|2003

Limits venue to the judicial district in which the action

[…]

Limits venue to the judicial district in which the action occurred, the plaintiff resides, or the defendant resides.


[hide]

Venue Reform: S.B. 212 (2011)

Alabama|2011

Prohibits “forum shopping” of wrongful death actions by requiring that

[…]

Prohibits “forum shopping” of wrongful death actions by requiring that a suit can be brought only in the county where the decedent could have filed suit.  This will prevent the practice of finding a personal representative in a plaintiff-favorable county solely for purposes of obtaining venue there due to the residency of the personal representative.


[hide]

Venue Reform: SB 305 (1999)

Alabama|1999

Establishes venue rules to restrict forum shopping.  Restricts lawsuit filings

[…]

Establishes venue rules to restrict forum shopping.  Restricts lawsuit filings against corporations to qualified venues.  Specifies venue rules for class action lawsuits and actions involving multiple plaintiffs.


[hide]

Forum Non Conveniens Reform: (1987).

Alabama|1987

Gives judges the authority to refuse out-of-state cases on the

[…]

Gives judges the authority to refuse out-of-state cases on the basis of convenience or inconvenience to parties and witnesses and allows judges to transfer cases to the most appropriate court.


[hide]