SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-3723-22 

 A-3724-22

 A-3725-22

HOLLY JOY WALKER, as 

guardian ad litem of STEVEN 

THOMAS WALKER, a minor, 

HOLLY WALKER, individually, 

and STEVEN WALKER, 

individually,

 Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

v.

INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, 

INC., INSPIRA HEALTH 

NETWORK MEDICAL GROUP, 

P.C., INSPIRA MEDICAL 

CENTERS, INC., LABORATORY 

CORPORATION OF AMERICA, 

d/b/a LABCORP, DEARON 

TUFANKJIAN, D.O., DOMINIC 

MARCHIANO, M.D., and ROBERT 

DEBBS, D.O., 

 Defendants-Respondents, 

and 

MELISSA SUAREZ, D.O. and 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION 

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2 A-3723-22

SAMANTHA DELUCA, D.O., 

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

LABCORP, INC., 

 Defendant. 

______________________________

HOLLY JOY WALKER, as 

guardian ad litem of STEVEN 

THOMAS WALKER, a minor, 

HOLLY WALKER, individually, 

and STEVEN WALKER, 

individually,

 Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

v.

INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, 

INC., INSPIRA HEALTH 

NETWORK MEDICAL GROUP 

P.C., and INSPIRA MEDICAL 

CENTERS, INC., 

 Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

LABORATORY CORPORATION 

OF AMERICA, d/b/a LABCORP, 

DEARON TUFANKJIAN, D.O., 

DOMINIC MARCHIANO, M.D., 

MELISSA SUAREZ, D.O., 

SAMANTHA DELUCA, D.O., 
3 A-3723-22

and ROBERT DEBBS, D.O., 

 Defendants-Respondents, 

and 

LABCORP, INC., 

 Defendant. 

______________________________

HOLLY JOY WALKER, as 

guardian ad litem of STEVEN 

THOMAS WALKER, a minor, 

HOLLY WALKER, individually, 

and STEVEN WALKER, 

individually,

Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

v. 

INSPIRA HEALTH NETWORK, 

INC., INSPIRA HEALTH 

NETWORK MEDICAL GROUP, 

P.C., INSPIRA MEDICAL 

CENTERS, INC., LABORATORY 

CORPORATION OF AMERICA, 

d/b/a LABCORP, DOMINIC 

MARCHIANO, M.D., MELISSA 

SUAREZ, D.O., SAMANTHA 

DELUCA, D.O., and ROBERT 

DEBBS, D.O., 

 Defendants-Respondents, 

and 
4 A-3723-22

DEARON TUFANKJIAN, D.O., 

 Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

LABCORP, INC., 

 Defendant. 

______________________________

Argued (A-3723-22) and Submitted (A-3724-22 and A3725-22) February 6, 2024 – Decided February 27, 2024 

Before Judges Sumners and Perez Friscia. 

On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superior 

Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, 

Docket No. L-1629-23.

Beth Ann Hardy argued the cause for appellants 

Samantha DeLuca, D.O., and Melissa Suarez, D.O., in

A-3723-22 (Farkas & Donohue, LLC, attorneys; 

Evelyn Cadorin Farkas, of counsel; Robert Gerald 

Veech, III, on the briefs).

Parker McCay P.A., attorneys for appellants Inspira

Health Network, Inc., Inspira Health Network Medical 

Group, P.C., and Inspira Medical Centers, Inc., in A3724-22 (Lora M. Foley and Andrew S. Winegar, on 

the briefs). 

Ruprecht, Hart, Ricciardulli & Sherman, LLP, 

attorneys for appellant Dearon Tufankjian, D.O., in A3725-22 (Patricia E. Voorhis, on the briefs; Michael R. 

Ricciardulli, of counsel and on the briefs). 
5 A-3723-22

Christina Vassiliou Harvey argued the cause for 

respondents Holly Joy Walker, as guardian ad litem of 

Steven Thomas Walker, Holly Walker, individually, 

and Steven Walker, individually (Lomurro Munson, 

LLC, attorneys; Jonathan H. Lomurro, of counsel; 

Christina Vassiliou Harvey, of counsel and on the 

briefs; Jeffrey John Niesz, on the briefs).

Ellen Nunno Corbo argued the cause for respondents 

Dominic Marchiano, M.D., and Robert Debbs, D.O. 

(Burns White LLC, attorneys; James A. Young, of 

counsel; Ellen Nunno Corbo, on the briefs).

PER CURIAM 

Plaintiffs Holly Walker and Steven Walker, individually, and Holly Joy 

Walker, as guardian ad litem of Steven Thomas Walker, filed a medical 

malpractice action alleging defendants negligently treated Holly1 and the unborn 

Steven Thomas by failing to properly diagnose Steven Thomas' congenital 

disorder or advise Holly and Steven there was an "extremely high risk" that 

Steven Thomas would be born with the congenital disorder. Plaintiffs live in 

Salem County but filed the action in Essex County, where defendant Laboratory 

Corporation of America (LabCorp) has locations. See R. 4:3-2(a)(3) (venue 

"shall be laid in the county in which the cause of action arose, or in which any 

1

 Because plaintiffs have the same last name, we refer to them by their first 

names for convenience and to avoid confusion. We mean no disrespect. 
6 A-3723-22

party to the action resides at the time of its commencement, or in which the 

summons was served on a nonresident defendant"). The other defendants, 

Melissa Suarez, D.O., Samantha DeLuca, D.O., Inspira Health Network, Inc., 

Inspira Health Network Medical Group, P.C., Inspira Medical Centers, Inc., 

Dearon Tufankjian, D.O., Dominic Marchiano, M.D., and Robert Debbs, D.O., 

all work or live in or near Gloucester County, which borders Salem County. All 

the medical services related to plaintiffs' allegations were rendered in Gloucester 

County. 

Through several motions and cross-motions, defendants2 sought to 

transfer venue to Gloucester County pursuant to Rule 4:3-3(a). The trial court 

denied the requests in three separate orders, accompanied with separate but 

essentially identical written decisions. Citing Rule 1:1-2(a), which allows the 

relaxation of a procedural rule when strict adherence "would result in an 

injustice," the court analyzed defendants' motions under the doctrine of forum 

non conveniens, which allows a court to exercise discretion to "determine 

whether transfer of the action is proper when an alternative venue exists." 

Applying the standard set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Gulf Oil 

2

 Hereafter, references to defendants do not include LabCorp, which is not a 

party to this appeal because it neither moved to change venue nor participated 

in the motions before the trial court. 
7 A-3723-22

Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947), and adopted by our Supreme Court in 

Gore v. U.S. Steel Corp., 15 N.J. 301 (1954), the court found transfer to 

Gloucester County unwarranted. 

The court determined that under Rule 4:3-2, venue was properly laid in 

Essex County because LabCorp "does business throughout . . . New Jersey, 

including multiple locations in Essex County." Yet, the court recognized that 

Rule 4:3-3(a) provides there may be "a change of venue . . . for the convenience 

of the parties and witnesses in the interest of justice." Considering the doctrine 

of forum non conveniens, "an equitable principle that may be invoked once 

jurisdiction and venue are established," the court cited Kurzke v. Nissan Motor 

Corp. in U.S.A., 164 N.J. 159, 162 (2000), for the proposition that the doctrine 

"allows a court to decline jurisdiction when it would be inappropriate to try the 

case in the forum selected by the plaintiff." The court scrutinized the respective 

case load statistics of Essex and Gloucester Counties. The court acknowledged 

that from the commencement of the lawsuit through the pendency of the 

motions, our Chief Justice had suspended civil trials in Vicinage 15, which 
8 A-3723-22

includes Gloucester and Salem Counties, due to the critical shortage of judges 

there.3 

Considering the parties' arguments and the law, the court denied the 

motions. Yet, the court stated its ruling might have been otherwise had civil 

trials in Gloucester not been suspended at the time. The court noted: 

Gloucester County's current civil trial moratorium must 

take precedence. If Gloucester County did not have a 

civil trial moratorium, the [c]ourt would seriously

consider relaxing the rules regarding venue. However, 

at this time, there is no guarantee when the civil trial 

moratorium will be lifted. Gloucester County's civil 

trial moratorium has been enacted due to judicial 

vacancies throughout the state. 

[Emphasis added.] 

On leave to appeal, the parties reiterate the arguments made before the 

trial court with one exception––defendants now contend that because the civil 

trial moratorium in Gloucester County no longer exists, venue should be 

transferred. This is game-changing. 

About three weeks after the trial court entered its orders denying the 

motions to transfer venue and after these appeals were filed, the Chief Justice 

3

 See Press Release, N.J. Cts., Statement of Chief Justice on Suspension of Civil 

and Matrimonial Trials in Vicinages Due to Vacancy Crisis (Feb. 7, 2023). 
9 A-3723-22

announced that civil trials would immediately resume in Vicinage 15.4 This is 

significant given the court's recognition that the civil trial moratorium in 

Gloucester County took "precedence" in keeping the case in Essex County, and 

that if the moratorium had not existed, the court "would seriously consider 

relaxing the rules regarding venue" to transfer the case to Gloucester County. 

Given the cards the court was dealt at the time it decided the motions, the court 

did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to transfer venue to 

Gloucester County. See Diodato v. Camden Cnty. Park Comm'n, 136 N.J. 

Super. 324, 328 (App. Div. 1975) (applying an abuse of discretion standard in 

reviewing a trial court's order on a motion to change venue). However, the

lifting of the moratorium requires a reexamination of whether venue should be 

transferred to Gloucester County. 

To avoid prolonging the prosecution of this lawsuit, we see no need to 

remand to the trial court to reconsider its prior orders based upon the reality that 

civil trials in Gloucester County have been reinstated. We therefore summarily 

decide that, in accordance with Rule 4:3-3(a) and the doctrine of forum non 

4

 Press Release, N.J. Cts., Statement of Chief Justice on Suspension of Civil 

and Matrimonial Trials in Vicinages Due to Vacancy Crisis (July 5, 2023). 
10 A-3723-22

conveniens, this case should be transferred to Gloucester County because the 

civil trial moratorium has been lifted. 

Under Rule 4:3-3(a), venue can be changed based on "the convenience of 

[the] parties and witnesses in the interest of justice." Generally, forum non 

conveniens applies when our courts consider whether we should exercise 

jurisdiction over a matter as opposed to another jurisdiction. E.g., Civic S. 

Factors Corp. v. Bonat, 65 N.J. 329, 332 (1974) (alternative forum was in New 

York); Gore, 15 N.J. at 303-04 (Alabama); Yousef v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 205 

N.J. 548, 559 (2011) (South Africa); Kurzke, 164 N.J. at 162 (Germany). Our 

courts, however, have also recognized "[t]here are no immutable boundaries 

confining [forum non conveniens], nor should there be." Vargas v. A. H. Bull 

S.S. Co., 44 N.J. Super. 536, 545 (Law Div.), aff'd, 25 N.J. 293 (1957). As an 

equitable principle, forum non conveniens is intended to further "the sound 

administration of justice" and our Supreme Court urged courts to "not hesitate 

to follow it in appropriate circumstances." Gore, 15 N.J. at 313. 

Plaintiffs, defendants, and potential witnesses all reside or work in

Gloucester County or neighboring Salem County. There is no dispute that 

keeping this matter in Essex County costs the parties significant travel time and 

greater expenses for court appearances for motion practice and trial than in 
11 A-3723-22

Gloucester County. The Essex County courthouse is about a two-hour drive 

one-way from where defendants as well as plaintiffs live and work. Whereas 

the Gloucester County courthouse is about a half-hour drive one-way for the 

parties. The extended travel to Essex County would disrupt defendants' medical 

practices and their patients' care. Moreover, LabCorp, the party which serves as

the sole basis for this case being in Essex County, has taken no position on 

venue. We conclude there is no longer any concrete reason to maintain venue 

in Essex County. 

We stay our decision to enable plaintiffs to file a petition for certification 

within the time allowed by our court rules. But should they advise the trial court 

that a petition will not be filed or the time to file a petition expires, the court 

shall promptly issue an order transferring this case to Gloucester County. 

Reversed.