Opinion ID: 2538237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether A Declinatory Exception of Improper Venue Is A Threshold Issue

Text: As an initial matter, we must decide whether a court is obligated to rule on defendant's exception of improper venue as a threshold issue. The Code of Civil Procedure is silent on this issue. La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 929 states a declinatory exception ... when pleaded before or in the answer shall be tried and decided in advance of the trial of the case. However, there is no provision stating whether an exception must be tried and decided prior to decision on a motion for forum non conveniens. Although this Court has never addressed whether venue is a threshold issue in this context, two Louisiana appellate courts have squarely considered the issue. In both cases, the court held a court has jurisdiction to rule on the forum non conveniens motion regardless of whether venue is proper. Boudreaux v. Able Supply Co., 08-1350 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/7/09), 19 So.3d 1263, 1270; Brumley v. Akzona, Inc., 2009-0861 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/13/10), 25 So.3d 1036 (unpublished). We agree. Both Boudreaux and Brumley rely upon and follow the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007). In Sinochem, the Court held a district court has discretion to respond at once to a defendant's forum non conveniens plea, and need not take up first any other threshold objection. Id. at 425, 127 S.Ct. 1184. Although a court must resolve any jurisdictional challenges prior to ruling on the merits of a case, a dismissal or transfer based on forum non conveniens does not dispose of a case on the merits, but merely shifts it to another courthouse for trial. Id. at 432, 127 S.Ct. 1184. Therefore, a court may decide a forum non conveniens challenge first where doing so would be in the best interests of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy. Id. at 432, 127 S.Ct. 1184. This holding is especially applicable where the determination of venue would be complex or time-consuming, yet one forum is clearly more convenient to the parties and witnesses. To clarify, our holding is limited to cases where the transferee court is a court of competent jurisdiction and proper venue. La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 123(A). When a court grants a motion to transfer pursuant to forum non conveniens, it must take pains to ensure it is not transferring the case to a forum where additional venue or jurisdictional challenges will be filed requiring two judges in two parishes to independently assess those issues would certainly not further the goals of increased judicial efficiency. Put otherwise, the forum non conveniens doctrine presupposes at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to process. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 506-7, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). If the proposed transferee court lacks jurisdiction or would be an improper venue, the motion to transfer must be denied irrespective of the relative convenience of the fora. In this case, however, both parties agree venue and jurisdiction are proper in Lincoln Parish. Here, the legal issues regarding whether venue in Orleans Parish is proper under La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 74 need not be resolved, as the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine is relatively straightforward. We therefore rule based on forum non conveniens and therefore pretermit any discussion of defendants' declinatory exception of venue and the issues raised therein.