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TUFANKJIAN, D.O., DOMINIC MARCHIANO, M.D., and ROBERT DEBBS, D.O., Defendants-Respondents, and MELISSA SUAREZ, D.O. and NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. 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,
and4 A- 3723

- 22

DEARON TUFANKJIAN, D.O., Defendant-Appellant,
and LABCORP, INC., Defendant.

______________________________

Argued (A

- 3723 -22) and Submitted (A- 372 4- 22 and A372 5-22) February 6, 2024

– Decided February 27, 2024 Before Judges Sumners and Perez Friscia. On appeal from an interlocutory order of the Superi or Court of New Jersey, Law Division , Essex County, Docket No. L- 1629

- 23. Beth A nn 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 Medica l 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 J ohn 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, individu ally, and Holly Joy Walker, as guardian ad litem of Steven Thomas Walke r, filed a medical malpractice action alleging defendants negligently treated Holly 1 and the unborn Steven Thomas by failing to properly diagnose Steve n Thomas' congenital disorder or advise Holly and Steven there was an "e xtremely high risk" that Steven Thomas would be born with the congenital disorder. Plaintiffs live in Salem County but filed the action in Essex County, w here defendant Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp) has locations. Se e 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 re fer to them by their first names for convenience and to avoid confusion. We m ean no disrespect.6 A- 3723

- 22

party to the action resides at the time of its comm encement, or in which the summons was served on a nonresident defendant"). The other defendants, Melissa Suarez, D.O., Samantha DeLuca, D.O., Inspir a Health Network, Inc., Inspira Health Network Medical Group, P.C., Inspira Medical Centers, Inc., Dearon Tufankjian, D.O., Dominic Marchiano, M.D., a nd Robert Debbs, D.O., all work or live in or near Gloucester County, whic h border s Salem County. All the medical services related to plaintiffs' allegat ions were rendered in Gloucester County. Through several motions and cross-motions, defendan ts 2 sought to transfer venue to Gloucester County pursuant to Rul e 4:3 -3(a). The trial court denied the requests in three separate orders, accom panied with separate but essentially identical written decisions. Citing Ru le 1:1 -2 (a) , which allows the relaxation of a procedural rule when strict adheren ce "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 al ternative 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 i t 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 c ourt found transfer to Gloucester County unwarranted. The court determined that under Rule 4:3-2, venue w as properly laid in Essex County because LabCorp "does business through out . . . New Jersey , including multiple locations in Essex Co unty

. " Yet, the court recognized that Rule 4:3 -3(a) provides there may be "a change of venue . . . for th e convenience of the parties and witnesses in the interest of jus tice." Consider ing the doctrine of forum non conveniens, "an equitable principle th at may be invoked once jurisdiction and venue are established, " the court cited Kurzke v. Nissan Motor
Co rp . in U.S.A., 164 N.J. 159, 162 (2000), for the prop osition that the doctrine "allows a court to decline jurisdiction when it wou ld be inappropriate to try the case in the forum selected by the plaintiff." The c ourt scrutinized the respective case load statistics of Essex and Gloucester Counti es. The court acknowledge d that from the commencement of the lawsuit through t he pendency of the motions, our Chief Justice had suspended civil tria ls in Vicinage 15, which8 A- 3723

- 22

includes Gloucester and Salem Counties, due to the critical shortage of judges there. 3 Considering the pa rties' arguments and the law, the court denied the motions

. Yet, the court stated its ruling might have been o therwise had civil trials in Gloucester not been suspended at the time . The court not ed :

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 civ il trial moratorium has been enacted due to judicial vacancies throughout the state. [Emphasis added.] On leave to appeal, the parties reiterate the argum ents made before the trial court with one exception

–– defendants now contend that because the civil trial moratorium in Gloucester County no longer exi sts, venue should be transferred. Th is is game-changing.
About three weeks after the trial court entered its order s denying the motions to transfer venue and after these appeals w ere filed, the Chief Justice

3 See Press Release, N.J. Cts., Statement of Chief Ju stice 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 resum e in Vicinage 15. 4 This is significant given the court's recognition that the ci vil 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 ven ue to Gloucester County. See Diodato v. Camden Cnty. Par k 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 chan ge venue). However, t he
li ft ing of the moratorium requires a reexamination of w hether 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 o rders based upon the reality that civil trials in Gloucester County have been reinsta ted

. W e 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 Just ice 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 Glou cester 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 ju risdiction. E.g. , Civic S. Factors Corp. v. Bonat, 65 N.J. 329, 332 (1974) (al ternative forum was in New York) ; Gore, 15 N.J. at 303-04 (Alabama); Yousef v. Gen. D ynamics 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.), af f'd, 25 N.J. 293 (1957). As an equitable principle, forum non conveniens is intend ed to further "the sound administration of justice" and our Supreme Court ur ged 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. The re is no dispute that keep ing this matter in Essex County costs the parties sign ificant travel time and greater expenses for court appearances for motion p ractice and trial than in11 A- 3723

- 22

Gloucester County. The Essex County courthouse is about a two

- hour drive

one -way from where defendants as well as plaintiffs li ve and work. Whereas the Gloucester County courthouse is about a half-ho ur drive one -way for the parties. The extended travel to Essex County would disrupt defendants' medical practices and the ir patients' care. Moreover, LabCorp, the party wh ich serves as the sole basis for this case being in Essex County, ha s 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 s hould they advise the trial court that a petition will not be filed or the time to fi le a petition expires, the court shall promptly issue an order transferring this cas e to Gloucester County

. Reversed.