 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Baker v. BP America Production Co.3/31/2005
in any county in New Mexico, including Santa Fe County, because the Manufacturing Defendants are not admitted to do business and did not designate statutory agents in New Mexico. The district court then concluded that because venue was proper in Santa Fe County for the Manufacturing Defendants, venue was also proper for BP. The court relied on Toscano. 2002-NMCA-022, 27 (holding that venue is proper in any New Mexico county for an action against a non-resident insurance company, and that therefore the same venue is proper for a resident defendant who resided in another county). The district court certified its ruling for interlocutory appeal, but the Court of Appeals declined to accept review. This Court granted BP's petition for writ of certiorari, finding the proper interpretation of the venue statute to be a matter of substantial public interest. See Rule 12-502(C)(4)(d) NMRA 2005.
We now decide whether a proper venue for a foreign corporation that has no statutory agent in New Mexico can also establish venue for a foreign corporation that does have an appointed statutory agent, but in a different county.
DISCUSSION
A motion to dismiss for improper venue based on the meaning of the venue statute involves questions of law, which we review de novo. Cooper v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 2002-NMSC-020, 5, 132 N.M. 382, 49 P.3d 61. Venue "relates to the convenience of litigants " and "reflect equity or expediency in resolving disparate interests of parties to a lawsuit in the place of trial." Team Bank v. Meridian Oil Inc., 118 N.M. 147, 150, 879 P.2d 779, 782 (1994) (quoted authorities omitted). Our courts have noted that New Mexico's venue statute is expansive and provides plaintiffs with broad discretion in choosing where to bring an action. See Sunwest Bank v. Nelson, 1998-NMSC-012, 10, 125 N.M. 170, 958 P.2d 740; Toscano, 2002-NMCA-022, 7. Yet we have also said that "the venue rules reflect an attempt to balance the common-law right of a defendant to be sued in his most convenient forum (usually the county of his residence) with the right of the plaintiff to choose the forum in which to sue." Team Bank, 118 N.M. at 150, 879 P.2d at 782.
We begin by considering the text of the venue statute. One of the ways the legislature attempts to balance the rights of the parties is by giving plaintiffs wide latitude in selecting a forum under Section 38-3-1(A), while also providing a special rule in actions against foreign corporations under Section 38-3-1(F). The residence of the defendant determines which subsection applies. See Cooper, 2002-NMSC-020, 5. If the defendant is a New Mexico resident, then Section 38-3-1(A) allows the lawsuit to be filed in any county in which a plaintiff or a defendant resides. Subsection A provides that when there is more than one resident plaintiff or defendant, venue is proper in any county where one of the parties resides.
If the defendant is a foreign corporation, however, Subsection A directs our attention to Subsection F. See ยง 38-3-1(A) (" xcept as provided in Subsection F of this section relating to foreign corporations . . . ."). According to Subsection F, if the foreign corporation defendant does not have a registered statutory agent in New Mexico, then the corporation is treated as any other type of non-resident and venue lies in any county in New Mexico. However, if the foreign corporation defendant "maintain a statutory agent in this state upon whom service of process may be had," venue is proper in the county where the statutory agent resides, in the county where the plaintiff is a resident, or where the cause of action originated. Section 38-3-1(F).
Despite the language in Subsection F li
Page 1 2 3 4 5 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|