Opinion ID: 1910721
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Appellees Filed Their Action in the Appropriate District Court.

Text: For their first assignment of error, appellants claim that the district court lacked authority to hear the instant case. In support of this argument, appellants rely upon § 21-2086(1), which, in pertinent part, provides that [t]he district court of the county where a corporation's principal office, or, if none in this state, its registered office, is located, may remove a director of the corporation from office. . . . Appellants claim that this statutory provision is jurisdictional and argue that Tri R's principal office is located in Cherry County, not Thomas County, and that therefore, the district court for Thomas County lacked jurisdiction to hear the instant case. We determine that, without regard to whether § 21-2086(1) is jurisdictional in nature, the evidence in the record demonstrates that Tri R's principal office is located in Thomas County, where the action was filed, and that thus, the district court for Thomas County was authorized under the statute to hear the present action. The record on appeal contains copies of Tri R's corporate bylaws. The bylaws provide that Tri R's principal office is located in Thomas County, a fact that counsel for appellants acknowledged at oral argument. Nothing in the record indicates that the bylaws have been amended relative to the principal office. Principal office is defined as the office, in or out of this state, so designated in the annual report where the principal executive offices of a domestic or foreign corporation are located. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 21-2014(15) (Reissue 1997). In challenging the filing of this action in Thomas County, appellants have not directed this court to any annual reports located in the record that designated Tri R's principal office. The record does not contain meaningful evidence that the principal office is located in a county other than Thomas County. Given the record, we conclude that there is no merit to appellants' first assignment of error.