Opinion ID: 2215226
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Brunton's position

Text: ¶ 12 Brunton argues that Wis. Stat. §§ 801.50 and 801.51, the general venue statutes, apply here instead of Wis. Stat. § 421.401(2). Section 801.51 permits any party to challenge venue on the grounds of noncompliance with § 801.50 or any other statute designating proper venue. Brunton contends that this language incorporates § 421.401, the Wisconsin Consumer Act's venue statute. Section 801.51(1) requires a party to file a motion for a change of venue [a]t or before the time the party serves his or her first motion or responsive pleading in the action. Accordingly, Brunton argues that Nuvell waived its challenge to venue because Nuvell's answerits first responsive pleadingfailed to raise the issue of improper venue. ¶ 13 Alternatively, Brunton argues that even if Wis. Stat. § 801.51 does not apply, Wis. Stat. § 421.401(2) permits waiver of the improper venue. She contends we must construe waiver under § 421.401(2) as an implied waiver. Under Brunton's implied waiver argument, the improper venue is waived unless a defendant raises an objection to improper venue at the outset of litigation (i.e., in a party's first motion or responsive pleading). Because Nuvell failed to timely raise an objection to improper venue, Brunton argues Nuvell waived the improper venue. [6]