Opinion ID: 2502333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Deference to Plaintiffs Choice of Forum

Text: The Mylan Petitioners contend that both circuit judges erred by granting more deference to the plaintiffs' choice of forum than is permitted under the statute. In this regard, West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a(a) provides that the plaintiffs choice of a forum is entitled to great deference, but this preference may be diminished when the plaintiff is a nonresident and the cause of action did not arise in this state. In the instant cases, none of plaintiffs are residents, i.e., they are nonresidents, and neither cause of action arose in this state. Consequently, pursuant to the plain language of statute, the preference ordinarily granted to the plaintiff's choice of forum may be diminished. The Mylan Petitioners contend that both circuit judges erred, because each indicated that the plaintiffs' choice of forum deserves substantial deference. As evidence of this alleged error, the Mylan Petitioners note that Judge Zakaib stated, in his conclusions of law, that [a]s an initial matter, pursuant to W. Va.Code § 56-1-1a, `. . . plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to great deference.' In addition, in addressing Mylan's concerns about compulsory process, Judge Zakaib wrote: [t]his is not a reason to override the `great deference' that must be afforded the Plaintiffs' choice of forum. Similarly, Judge Bailey stated, at the oral argument on this matter, I think that there's a lot of deference given to the choosing of the forum by the plaintiff. Neither judge acknowledged the possibility of diminished deference contemplated by the statute. The Hayden Respondents do not respond to this issue, however Respondent Hall contends that, although the statute states that the deference afforded to a plaintiff's choice of forum may be diminished under certain circumstances, it does not mean that the deference is abolished. He notes that federal courts, in considering a similar federal law, have found that although the deference afforded to a choice of forum by a non-resident plaintiff is diminished, this is not to say that a foreign plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to no deference. Slight By and Through Slight v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 979 F.Supp. 433, 437 (S.D.W.Va.1997). Respondent Hall therefore argues that Judge Bailey did not err in continuing to give deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum. `A statutory provision which is clear and unambiguous and plainly expresses the legislative intent will not be interpreted by the courts but will be given full force and effect.' Syl. Pt. 2, State v. Epperly, 135 W.Va. 877, 65 S.E.2d 488 (1951). Syl. Pt. 1, State v. Jarvis, 199 W.Va. 635, 487 S.E.2d 293 (1997). Here, the statute plainly states that, in cases in which the plaintiff is not a resident of West Virginia and the cause of action did not arise in West Virginia, the great deference typically afforded to a plaintiff's choice of forum  may be diminished. Nothing in the statute requires a court to diminish, or abolish altogether, the deference it normally affords a plaintiffs choice of forum. Rather, it permits courts to do so, when the precedent factors have been met. While neither of the circuit judges below specifically acknowledged the statutory language contemplating a diminished preference, we cannot find that either judge misinterpreted the plain language of the statute by continuing to defer to the respective plaintiffs' choice of forum. Consequently, because the statute does not require courts to diminish the preference granted to a plaintiff's choice of forum in these circumstances, the circuit judges did not err in applying the statute in this respect.