Case Name: Yoshinobu NAMIHIRA, M.D. v. Cinder Louise BAILEY
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Mississippi
Decision Date: 2005-01-20
Citations: 891 So. 2d 831
Docket Number: No. 2003-M-02479-SCT
Parties: Yoshinobu NAMIHIRA, M.D. v. Cinder Louise BAILEY.
Judges: SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., AND CARLSON, J, CONCUR. GRAVES, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITH ' SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. DIAZ AND RANDOLPH, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 891
Pages: 831–836

Head Matter:
Yoshinobu NAMIHIRA, M.D. v. Cinder Louise BAILEY.
No. 2003-M-02479-SCT.
Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Jan. 20, 2005.
Clifford C. Whitney, III, Vicksburg, attorney for petitioner.
Ron M. Feder, Gulfport, T. Roe Frazer, II, Jackson, attorneys for respondent.

Opinion:
DICKINSON, Justice, for the Court.
¶ 1. Before this Court is a petition for interlocutory appeal from an order issued by the Claiborne County Circuit granting a change of venue. The only plaintiff proceeding to trial, Frances Fleming, filed suit in her home county of Claiborne, against Johnson & Johnson, Inc., and Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc., both foreign corporations who manufacturer the drug, Propulsid and Yoshinobu Namihira, M.D., a resident of Warren County.
¶2. On July 11, 2003, the plaintiff requested a transfer of venue to Hinds County, claiming the inability to seat an impartial jury in Claiborne County. Dr. Namihira agreed with the plaintiffs assertion that an impartial jury could not be seated in Claiborne County, but requested that the action be transferred to Warren County, where he lives and practices medicine, rather than Hinds County, which has no connection to the matter.
¶ 3. The circuit judge granted the plaintiffs motion to transfer venue to Hinds County, overruling Dr. Namihira's request for transfer to Warren County. Dr. Nami-hira filed a petition for interlocutory appeal of that order. This Court, sitting en banc, finds the interlocutory appeal should be granted, and further finds the issue raised is a matter of first impression under Mississippi law, and should be determined by written opinion, rather than order.
¶ 4. This case is proceeding to trial on the claim of Frances Fleming, a resident of Claiborne County. The defendants are Johnson & Johnson and Janssen, both of which are foreign corporations with their principal places of business outside of Mississippi, and Dr. Namihira, who is a resident, of Warren County. Dr. Namihira's treatment of Fleming occurred in Warren County.
¶ 5. We note that this civil action should have been filed in Warren County which, according to the information before us, is the only county of appropriate venue. The general venue statute at the time this suit was filed — which this Court has endorsed and approved for many years— provided as follows:
(1) Civil actions of which the circuit court has original jurisdiction shall be commenced in the county in which the defendant or any of them may be found or in the county where the cause of action may occur or accrue, and if the defendant is a domestic corporation, in the county in which said corporation is domiciled or in the county where the cause of action may occur or accrue, except where otherwise provided.
Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-3(1) (Supp.2001) (emphasis added).
¶ 6. Warren County is the only county in Mississippi 'in which a defendant resides. If that was true at the time the suit was originally filed, the suit should have-been filed in Warren County. The statute provides that the suit "shall be commenced" in the county where the defendant resides or the alleged act or- omission occurred. The permissive language, "may also be commenced in the county in which the plaintiff resides" applies only where there is no resident defendant. Since Dr. Namihira is a resident defendant, this suit should have been brought in his home county of Warren. However, Dr. Namihira did not raise this issue. Instead, he asks us to order a transfer of venue to Warren County based on Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-51, which provides:
When either party to any civil action in the circuit court shall desire to change the venue, he shall present to the court, or the judge of the district, a petition setting forth under oath that he has good reason to believe, and does believe that, from the undue influence of the adverse party, prejudice existing in the public mind, or for some other sufficient cause to be stated in the petition, he cannot obtain a fair and impartial trial in the county where the action is pending, and that the application is made as soon as convenient after being advised of such undue influence, prejudice, or other cause, and not to delay the trial or to vex or harass the adverse party. On reasonable notice in writing to the adverse party of the time and place of making the application, if made in vacation, the court, if in term time, or the judge in vacation, shall hear the parties and examine the evidence which either may adduce, and may award a change of venue to some convenient county where an impartial trial may be had, and, if practicable, in which the circuit court may next be held. If made in vacation, the order shall be indorsed on the petition and directed to the clerk, who shall file the same with the papers in the suit.
Miss.Code Ann. § 11-11-51 (emphasis added).
¶ 7. The circuit judge found the Second Judicial District of Hinds County to be "convenient." We are not told his reasons, but they may have included the close proximity of Hinds County or the fact that two of the attorneys involved have law offices in Hinds County. Absent a resident defendant, both these factors are reasonable considerations. However, transfer of venue to a "convenient county" must always be made, if possible, to a county where the case could be commenced.
¶ 8. In cases which should be transferred "in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses," upon motion of one of the parties — or upon the court's own motion — a more convenient county "of proper venue" may be designated by the trial court. Miss. R. Civ. P. 82(e). This forum non conveniens provision is new to Mississippi civil practice and applies to civil actions filed after its adoption on February 20, 2004. Following this Court's adoption of Rule 82(e), the Legislature enacted Miss. Code Ann. § ll-ll-3(4)(a), which is substantially similar to Rule 82(e). The statute lists the following factors to be considered by the trial court in determining "convenience,":
(i) Relative ease of access to sources of proof;
(ii) Availability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses;
(iii) Possibility of viewing of the premises, if viewing would be appropriate to the action;
(iv) Unnecessary expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiffs own right to pursue his remedy;
(v) Administrative difficulties for the forum courts;
(vi) Existence of local interests in deciding the case at home; and
(vii) The traditional deference given to a plaintiffs choice of forum.
¶ 9. We find these factors to be helpful, not only in the resolution of a motion for transfer of venue for forum non conve-niens, but also where, as here, the action must be transferred due to the inability to seat a fair jury. However, in the case sub judice, the trial court would not even reach an evaluation of the factors, since both Rule 82(e) and Miss.Code Ann. § 11 — 11— 3(4)(a) require transfer to a county of proper venue which, here, would be Warren County. We note parenthetically that, where an action must be transferred, and there is no other county of proper venue, the same factors should be considered, giving heavy weight to the first and third factors.
¶ 10. For the reasons stated herein, we grant the petition for interlocutory appeal, reverse the order of the Circuit Court of Claiborne County, and remand this case for a transfer to the Circuit Court of Warren County.
¶ 11. PETITION FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL GRANTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED.
SMITH, C.J., WALLER AND COBB, P.JJ., AND CARLSON, J, CONCUR. GRAVES, J., DISSENTS WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. EASLEY, J., DISSENTS WITH ' SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION. DIAZ AND RANDOLPH, JJ., NOT PARTICIPATING.
. See Capital City Ins. Co. v. G.B. "Boots" Smith Corp., 889 So.2d 505, 516, 2004 WL 2403939, at *12 (Miss.2004), overriding Senatobia Cmty. Hosp. v. Orr, 607 So.2d 1224 (Miss.1992), on this issue.