Court Opinion

ID: 9897409
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:11:12.189388+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:45.772580
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                          May 04 2023, 9:33 am

                                                                               CLERK
                                                                           Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                              Court of Appeals
                                                                                and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Laura E. Landenwich                                        Zachary F. Stewart
Adams Landenwich Walton, PLLC                              Jeffersonville, Indiana
Louisville, Kentucky

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

William Spalding,                                          May 4, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           22A-PL-2398
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Clark Superior
                                                           Court
Utica Township Volunteer Fire                              The Honorable Kyle Williams,
Association d/b/a New Chapel                               Judge
Fire & EMS,                                                Trial Court Cause No.
Appellee-Plaintiff                                         10D06-2207-PL-78

                                  Opinion by Judge May
                            Judges Mathias and Bradford concur.

May, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PL-2398 | May 4, 2023                                    Page 1 of 8
[1]   William Spalding appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for change of

      venue from Clark County to Floyd County. We affirm.

      Facts and Procedural History
[2]   The Utica Township Volunteer Fire Association d/b/a New Chapel Fire &

      EMS (“New Chapel”) provides emergency medical services to residents in both

      Clark County, Indiana, and Floyd County, Indiana. In 2013, New Chapel

      hired Spalding, a Floyd County resident, as a paramedic, and the parties

      executed an “Employment, Confidential Information, and Invention

      Assignment Agreement” (“the Agreement”). (App. Vol. II at 13.) In pertinent

      part, the Agreement stated:

              9. Covenant Not to Compete

              (a) I agree that during the course of my employment and for a
              period of eighteen (18) months immediately following the
              termination of my relationship with the Company [“New
              Chapel”] for any reason, whether with or without good cause or
              for any or no cause, at the option either of the Company or
              myself, with or without notice, I will not, without the prior
              written consent of the Company, (i) serve as a partner, employee,
              consultant, officer, director, manager, agent, associate, investor,
              or otherwise for, (ii) directly or indirectly, own, purchase,
              organize or take preparatory steps for the organization of, or (iii)
              build, design, finance, acquire, lease, operate, manage, invest in,
              work or consult for or otherwise affiliate myself with, any
              business in competition with or otherwise similar to the
              Company’s business. The foregoing covenant shall cover my
              activities in every part of Clark and Floyd counties, Indiana
              (hereinafter “Territory”).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PL-2398 | May 4, 2023                Page 2 of 8
                                                     *****

              12. General Provisions.

              (a) Governing Law; Consent to Personal Jurisdiction. This
              agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of Indiana
              without regard for conflicts of laws principles. I hereby expressly
              consent to the personal jurisdiction of the state courts located in
              Clark County, Indiana and/or the Federal District Court for the
              Southern District of Indiana for any lawsuit filed there against
              me by the Company concerning my employment or the
              termination of my employment or arising from or relating to this
              agreement.

      (Id. at 17-18.) Sometime thereafter, Spalding left his job with New Chapel and

      began working for Baptist Health, a hospital in Floyd County.

[3]   On July 14, 2022, New Chapel filed suit against Spalding in Clark County

      Superior Court. In its complaint, New Chapel claimed Spalding breached the

      covenant not to compete provision of the Agreement by leaving his New

      Chapel employment and going to work for Baptist Health. New Chapel

      alleged:

              Venue is proper in this Court as the Defendant is a resident of
              Indiana, regularly conducts business in Indiana, and the facts
              giving rise to this Complaint occurred, at least in part, in Clark
              County, Indiana. In addition, [the Agreement] section 12(a)
              specifies the Parties express “consent to the personal jurisdiction
              of the state courts located in Clark County, Indiana[.]”

      (Id. at 7-8.)

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PL-2398 | May 4, 2023               Page 3 of 8
[4]   On August 3, 2022, Spalding filed a verified motion for change of venue.

      Spalding requested the case be transferred from Clark County to Floyd County

      because, pursuant to Trial Rule 75, Floyd County was a “preferred venue”

      whereas Clark County was not a “preferred venue.” (Id. at 23.) On August 8,

      2022, New Chapel filed a response in which it contended the Agreement

      conferred venue in Clark County. The trial court held a hearing on Spalding’s

      motion, and on September 19, 2022, the trial court issued an order summarily

      denying Spalding’s motion for change of venue. 1

      Discussion and Decision
[5]   We generally review the denial of a motion for change of venue for an abuse of

      discretion. Indianapolis-Marion Cnty. Pub. Libr. v. Shook, LLC, 835 N.E.2d 533,

      540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). An abuse of discretion occurs “if the trial court’s

      decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances

      before it, or if the trial court has misinterpreted the law.” Id. Nonetheless,

      “when the parties consent to venue in a contract, that agreement overrides the

      preferred venue analysis that is set forth in Trial Rule 75.” Id.

      1
       Pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A), Spalding pursues this interlocutory appeal of the denial of his
      motion for change of venue as a matter of right.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PL-2398 | May 4, 2023                                   Page 4 of 8
[6]   We review questions of contract interpretation de novo. Lake Imaging, LLC v.

      Franciscan All., Inc., 182 N.E.3d 203, 206 (Ind. 2022). As our Indiana Supreme

      Court has explained:

              In interpreting a contract, we ascertain the intent of the parties at
              the time the contract was made, as disclosed by the language
              used to express the parties’ rights and duties. We look at the
              contract as a whole . . . and we accept an interpretation of the
              contract that harmonizes all its provisions. A contract’s clear and
              unambiguous language is given its ordinary meaning. A contract
              should be construed so as to not render any words, phrases, or
              terms ineffective or meaningless.

      Ryan v. TCI Architects/Eng’rs/Cont’rs, Inc., 72 N.E.3d 908, 914 (Ind. 2017)

      (internal citations omitted).

[7]   Spalding contends the Agreement “does not establish Clark County as the

      proper venue for disputes, it just provides that the court has ‘personal

      jurisdiction.’” (Appellant’s Br. at 6.) Spalding asserts he “agreed to the

      ‘personal jurisdiction’ of state courts in Clark County and the US District Court

      for the Southern District of Indiana.” (Id.) He argues “[t]he contract makes no

      designation of the proper venue.” (Id.)

[8]   We addressed a similar argument in Sunburst Chem., LLC v. Acorn Distribs., Inc.,

      922 N.E.2d 652 (Ind. 2010). In that case, Sunburst Chemical, a company with

      its principal place of business in Fort Wayne, agreed to purchase products from

      Acorn Distributors. Id. at 653. The purchase agreement included a provision

      that in the event of a lawsuit based on the agreement, Sunburst “hereby submits

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PL-2398 | May 4, 2023              Page 5 of 8
      to the jurisdiction of the Courts of Marion [C]ounty in the state of Indiana.” Id.

      (brackets in original). Acorn then filed suit against Sunburst in Marion County

      alleging Sunburst failed to pay for the products it purchased. Id. Sunburst filed

      a motion to transfer venue from Marion County to Allen County, and the trial

      court denied Sunburst’s motion. Id. On appeal, Sunburst argued the purchase

      agreement “does not establish venue because it mentions only jurisdiction.” Id.

      Sunburst suggested the “clear and ordinary intent” behind the provision was to

      subject foreign companies to the jurisdiction of Marion County. Id. While we

      acknowledged jurisdiction and venue are distinct legal concepts, 2 we held that if

      the purchase agreement was not intended to address venue, “it would render

      the reference to Marion County meaningless.” Id. at 654. Therefore, we

      affirmed the trial court’s denial of Sunburst’s motion for change of venue

      because “we must presume that Acorn placed the provision in the agreement

      for a purpose and that the reference to the courts of Marion County is intended

      to have meaning.” Id.

[9]   Likewise, in the case before us, if the Agreement’s reference to Clark County is

      not also intended to address venue, it would render the contract provision

      meaningless. Spalding notes some of New Chapel’s employees live in

      Kentucky, and he argues “the ‘personal jurisdiction’ provision serves the

      purpose of committing non-resident employees to the jurisdiction of Indiana

      2
        See Hootman v. Fin. Ctr. Fed. Credit Union, 462 N.E.2d 1064, 1066 n.7 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (explaining
      jurisdiction involves the court’s ability to hear a particular case, whereas venue concerns the proper situs for
      trial).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PL-2398 | May 4, 2023                                       Page 6 of 8
       state courts.” (Appellant’s Br. at 10.) However, the clause does not simply

       state the parties agree to personal jurisdiction in Indiana. The clause specifies

       Clark County, Indiana, and we presume this reference to a specific county was

       intended to mean the courts of that county. See Sunburst Chem., LLC, 922

       N.E.2d at 654 (holding venue in Marion County was proper when the parties’

       contract conferred jurisdiction in the courts of Marion County).

[10]   Spalding takes issue with such an interpretation because he characterizes other

       provisions of the Agreement, like the provisions pertaining to intellectual

       property, as “utterly superfluous and clearly inapplicable to New Chapel[.]”

       (Appellant’s Br. at 10.) However, we are not tasked with interpreting those

       other provisions in this appeal, and during the hearing before the trial court,

       New Chapel disagreed with the assertion “that there may be some provisions in

       [the Agreement] that maybe aren’t really applicable to New Chapel[.]” (Tr.

       Vol. II at 10-11.) Spalding also notes New Chapel drafted the Agreement, and

       he argues “[u]nder well-established principles of Indiana contract law, the

       employment contract should have been construed against the drafter, New

       Chapel.” (Appellant’s Br. at 7.) We agree that one of the principles of contract

       interpretation “is that any ambiguity in a contract should be construed against

       the drafter of the contract.” Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc. v. Wilmoth, 70 N.E.3d

       833, 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017), trans. denied. We do not, though, see the

       Agreement’s designation of the Clark County courts as the forum for resolving

       disputes arising out of the Agreement to be ambiguous. Therefore, we hold the

       Agreement conferred venue in Clark County, and we affirm the trial court’s

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PL-2398 | May 4, 2023            Page 7 of 8
       order denying Spalding’s motion for change of venue. See Sunburst Chem., LLC,

       922 N.E.2d at 654 (holding agreement between the parties conferred venue in

       Marion County when it used the word jurisdiction).

       Conclusion
[11]   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order.

[12]   Affirmed.

       Mathias, J., and Bradford, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-PL-2398 | May 4, 2023      Page 8 of 8