Opinion ID: 1157090
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutionality of Venue Statute.

Text: In the alternative, Aetna contends that the statute denies it equal protection of the laws because a domestic corporation is allowed to bring suit in the county of its residence while a foreign corporation is not. A presumption exists in favor of the validity of legislation. Espanola Housing Authority v. Atencio, 90 N.M. 787, 568 P.2d 1233 (1977). The equal protection clause does not prohibit different classifications for legislative purposes. Shope v. Don Coe Const. Co., 92 N.M. 508, 590 P.2d 656 (Ct.App. 1979). A legislative classification may not be arbitrary or unreasonable and will be struck down if [it] is so devoid of reason to support it, as to amount to a mere caprice.    [Citation omitted.] If any state of facts can be reasonably conceived which will sustain the classification, there is a presumption that such facts exist. Board of Trustees of Town of Las Vegas v. Montano, 82 N.M. 340, 343, 481 P.2d 702, 705 (1981). The United States Supreme Court held in American Motorists Ins. Co. v. Starnes, 425 U.S. 637, 96 S.Ct. 1800, 48 L.Ed.2d 263 (1976), a Texas venue statute which allowed suits against a domestic corporation outside of the county of its domicile only if the plaintiff proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, the elements of his cause of action at a preliminary venue hearing did not violate equal protection. The statute allowed suit to be brought against a foreign corporation in any county in which it had an agency or representative without requiring the plaintiff to make this preliminary showing. The Court upheld the statute against a claim that it constituted unreasonable discrimination against foreign corporations, stating: [I]t is fundamental rights which the Fourteenth Amendment safeguards and not the mere forum which a State may see proper to designate for the enforcement and protection of such rights. Given therefore a condition where fundamental rights are equally protected and preserved, it is impossible to say that the rights which are thus protected and preserved have been denied because the State has deemed best to provide for a trial in one forum or another. It is not under any view the mere tribunal into which a person is authorized to proceed by a State which determines whether the equal protection of the law has been afforded, but whether in the tribunals which the State has provided equal laws prevail. Id. at 644-45, 96 S.Ct. at 1804 (quoting Cincinnati Street R. Co. v. Snell, 193 U.S. 30, 36-37, 24 S.Ct. 319, 321-22, 48 L.Ed. 604 (1904)). Aetna relies on Power Co. v. Saunders, 274 U.S. 490, 47 S.Ct. 678, 71 L.Ed. 1165 (1927), in which the Court struck down an Arkansas statute which allowed suit against foreign corporations in any county of the state, but allowed suit against domestic corporations only in counties in which the corporation did business or maintained an office or agent. The Court in American Motorists Ins. Co., supra at n. 6, pointed out that the continued validity of Power Co. had been questioned, citing Allied Stores of Ohio v. Bowers, 358 U.S. 522, 79 S.Ct. 437, 3 L.Ed.2d 480 (1959); Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brownell, 294 U.S. 580, 55 S.Ct. 538, 79 L.Ed. 1070 (1935); Bain Peanut Co. v. Pinson, 282 U.S. 499, 51 S.Ct. 228, 75 L.Ed. 482 (1931). At any rate, we believe that Power Co. is distinguishable from the present situation. The Court there emphasized the real and substantial discrimination which resulted from the venue statute, noting that [i]f [a foreign corporation] be present in a single county,   it is made subject to suit not merely in that county, but in any of the 74 other counties although it be not present in them in any sense. 274 U.S. at 493, 47 S.Ct. at 679. Examining Section 38-3-1 in this light, we conclude that the statute does not discriminate against foreign corporations in any real and substantial manner. Foreign corporations may sue a resident in the county of the defendant's residence, in the county where the contract was made or to be performed, or in the county where the cause of action originated or the indebtedness was incurred. Aetna maintains an office in Santa Fe County and the defendants dealt solely with the Santa Fe office. Venue would thus be appropriate in Santa Fe County, where the defendants reside and the contract was made. Aetna's fundamental right to access to our courts is thus fully protected. We hold that the classification of foreign corporations in the venue statute is not so arbitrary or unreasonable as to constitute a denial of equal protection. The cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. IT IS SO ORDERED. SOSA, Senior Justice, and PAYNE and RIORDAN, JJ., concur. FEDERICI, J., respectfully dissenting.