 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Cacho v. Superior Court11/19/1991
In this medical malpractice suit, the trial court granted real parties in interest's (defendants) request for change of venue pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-401. The Court of Appeals, Division One, declined jurisdiction of petitioners' (plaintiffs) special action petition challenging the trial court's ruling. We granted review to address an important issue of law regarding venue in suits involving both individual and corporate defendants. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 5(3), of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 12-120.24.
FACTS
Plaintiff Chris Cacho (Cacho) was admitted as a patient to Havasu Regional Hospital, a facility operated in Mohave County by Samaritan Health Services (Samaritan). During the course of his treatment, Cacho allegedly suffered severe oxygen deprivation, resulting in physical and mental disabilities. Cacho and his wife subsequently filed this medical malpractice suit against Samaritan and other individual and corporate entities that had treated Cacho, together with the spouses of the individual defendants. The suit was filed in Maricopa County, Samaritan's principal place of business. The other defendants are a Florida corporation and individuals residing in Mohave County and in the State of Oregon.
Defendants moved for change of venue to Mohave County under A.R.S. §§ 12-401, -404 (improper county) or alternatively, under A.R.S. § 12-406 (forum non conveniens). The Cachos responded that venue was proper under A.R.S. § 12-401 based on their uncontroverted affidavit stating that Samaritan resides in Maricopa County, is found in Maricopa County, and has an agent in Maricopa County.
Without reaching the merits of the question of forum non conveniens, the trial court granted defendants' motion for change of venue based on the court's interpretation of A.R.S. § 12-401. The trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. The court of appeals declined to accept special action jurisdiction. The matter thereafter came to this court by petition for review.
ISSUE PRESENTED
We frame the issue for review as follows: Is a corporate defendant a "person" with a residence for venue purposes under A.R.S. § 12-401?
We deem the issue to be of statewide importance. We also conclude that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in its order transferring venue in this case. Because the error is not remediable by appeal, we grant plaintiffs' petition for review.
Discussion
Status of a Corporation Under the Venue Statute, A.R.S. § 12-401
Section 12-401 sets forth one general rule of venue, subject to nineteen exceptions. The statute provides, in pertinent part:
No person shall be sued out of the county in which such person resides, except:
7. When there are several defendants residing in different counties, action may be brought in the county in which any of the defendants reside.
10. When the foundation of the action is a . . . . trespass for which an action in damages may lie, the action may be brought in the county in which the . . . trespass was committed or in the county in which the defendant or any of the several defendants reside or may be found . . . .
18. Actions against . . . corporations may be brought in any county in which the cause of action, or any part thereof, arose, or in the county in which defendant has an agent or representative, owns property or conducts any b
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|