Court Opinion

ID: 9819105
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 06:18:31.385918+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:38:28.983168
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KILBRIDE, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. The majority flatly disregards this court’s repeated pronouncements that the forum non conveniens doctrine gives courts broad discretionary power that should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances when the interests of justice require a trial in a more convenient forum. Boner v. Peabody Coal Co., 142 Ill. 2d 523, 527-28 (1991), citing Bland v. Norfolk & Western Ry. Co., 116 Ill. 2d 217, 223 (1987); First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d 511, 520 (2002), quoting Peile v. Skelgas, Inc., 163 Ill. 2d 323, 335 (1994), quoting Torres v. Walsh, 98 Ill. 2d 338, 346 (1983), citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 91 L. Ed. 1055, 67 S. Ct. 839 (1947). This case does not present a situation where, as indicated by the majority, “[t]he record strongly indicates that a trial in Macoupin County would better serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice” and “no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” (Emphasis added.) 207 Ill. 2d at 177. The trial court noted all of the relevant factors, assessed their relative importance under the circumstances of this case, and concluded that a transfer was not warranted. Thus, it cannot be held that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to transfer this case to Macoupin County. The majority discounts that defendant Union Pacific, a foreign corporation, is a resident of Madison County for venue purposes. See 735 ILCS 5/2 — 102(a) (West 2000) (in the case of a foreign corporation, residence is defined as any county where the corporation has an office or is doing business). Union Pacific’s contact with Madison County is not minimal or marginal. The record demonstrates that Union Pacific does not merely conduct business in Madison County, it operates a facility there and employs numerous citizens of Madison County, including some of the potential witnesses who work out of this facility. I also disagree with the majority’s conclusion that in a forum non conveniens analysis, the court should not consider the fact that the defendant conducts business in Madison County. 207 Ill. 2d at 183. This court has held that the “extent and type of business” conducted in the forum are certainly appropriate considerations for the court in a forum non conveniens analysis. Boner, 142 Ill. 2d at 540. Thus, the majority’s conclusion that the court should not consider the fact that Union Pacific conducts business in Madison County is inexplicable. In Boner, this court recognized that, where a defendant company has offices and conducts active operations in a county, its activities in that county are “by no means marginal.” Boner, 142 Ill. 2d at 540. Thus, when weighing the relative “convenience” of Madison County to the defendants, the fact that Union Pacific operates facilities in Madison County militates against finding the forum “inconvenient” to the defendants. Certainly the residents of Madison County have an interest in the resolution of this litigation involving a corporation that operates facilities within its borders. Presumably, Union Pacific and its numerous Madison County resident employees pay taxes in Madison County. Hence, the county’s resources would not be overburdened with the trial of a case involving the alleged negligence of one of its corporate residents. See Boner, 142 Ill. 2d at 540. Although plaintiff did not file suit in his home forum and, thus, his choice of forum is given less deference, his choice of forum is, nevertheless, still accorded considerable weight. Boner, 142 Ill. 2d at 542. This is especially true where, as here, the defendants’ forum choice is neither plaintiffs home forum nor Union Pacific’s home forum. See Boner, 142 Ill. 2d at 542. It is also unfair and inaccurate for the majority to suggest that the plaintiff in this case has somehow engaged in “ ‘[Realigning parties for the purpose of fixing venue in a county where there may be a more favorable outcome’ ” to him. 207 Ill. 2d at 167, quoting Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 329 Ill. App. 3d 189, 199 (2002). The plaintiff in this case did not “realign the parties.” Plaintiff was simply injured in an accident with a truck owned by Union Pacific, driven by a Union Pacific employee. Nor did plaintiff include Union Pacific as a defendant for any improper forum shopping purpose. Union Pacific is a necessary and indispensable party to this litigation. Not only was Union Pacific the owner of the truck and the employer of defendant Riederer, but plaintiffs complaint also specifically alleges that Union Pacific was negligent for failing to train and supervise Riederer and for failing to ensure that vehicle attachments would not extend beyond the width of its vehicles when operated on public thoroughfares. I also acknowledge the majority’s concerns regarding the number of cases filed in Madison County. Nevertheless, just as plaintiffs sometimes choose a forum because of a perceived advantage, some defendants move for dismissal or transfer under the doctrine of forum non conveniens not because of genuine concern with convenience but because they believe that an alternative forum would be more friendly to their interests. Accordingly, this court should be hesitant to supplant a trial court’s forum non conveniens ruling where, as here, such a transfer will not “ ‘better “serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.” ’ ” Wieser v. Missouri Pacific R.R. Co., 98 Ill. 2d 359, 365 (1983), quoting Adkins v. Chicago Rock Island & Pacific R.R. Co., 54 Ill. 2d 511, 514 (1973), quoting Lonergan v. Crucible Steel Co. of America, 37 Ill. 2d 599, 606 (1967); accord Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 310 (1991); see Gulf Oil Corp., 330 U.S. at 507, 91 L. Ed. at 1062, 67 S. Ct. at 842. On a forum non conveniens motion, the burden is on the defendant to show that relevant private and public interest factors “strongly favor” the defendant’s choice of forum to warrant disturbing plaintiffs choice. Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., 136 Ill. 2d 101, 107 (1990). “ ‘In most instances, the plaintiffs initial choice of forum will prevail, provided venue is proper and the inconvenience factors attached to such forum do not greatly outweigh the plaintiffs substantial right to try the case in the chosen forum.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 520, quoting Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 335-36. Although this is a difficult standard for defendants to meet, “it does not foreclose legitimate transfers when the balance of factors strongly favors litigation in another forum.” (Emphases added.) Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 521. In this case, the existing record does not support defendants’ claim that the trial court did not properly consider or apply the relevant forum non conveniens factors. Defendants have not produced a verbatim record of the proceedings. In ruling on a forum non conveniens motion, a court must engage in a fact-sensitive analysis. In Guerine, this court strongly cautioned that trial courts “give more careful consideration to forum non conveniens motions” and “leave a better record of their analyses” so that reviewing courts can make more informed decisions. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 520-21. Implicit in this court’s admonition was a directive that litigants provide the trial court with a record of the relevant factors, supported by facts and evidence, as opposed to supposition or conjecture, in support of or in opposition to the forum non conveniens motion. See Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 329 Ill. App. 3d 422, 425 (2002), appeal allowed, 201 Ill. 2d 566 (2002). Here, no affidavits have been filed stating that Madison County would be an inconvenient forum for any of the witnesses. In fact, defendants’ counsel would be required to travel from their office in St. Clair County through Madison County to try this case in Macoupin County, and plaintiff’s counsel maintains an office in Madison County. Other than generic and conclusory allegations regarding cost and inconvenience of bringing witnesses from adjacent counties to Madison County and perceived difficulties scheduling witnesses to testify at trial in a county with a busy court docket, defendants have not asserted facts indicating any actual impediments to accessing sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence. None of defendants’ arguments assert any real inconvenience to the defendants or any practical problems militating against trying this case in Madison County. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence on the relevant interests to sustain the trial court’s ruling. See Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984) (if the record is insufficient to support defendant’s claim of error, then the reviewing court must presume that the trial court’s order was in conformity with established legal principles and had a sufficient factual basis). Nevertheless, the majority completely sidesteps this court’s latest discussion of the forum non conveniens doctrine that occurred barely one year ago in Guerine. In Guerine, a Kane County resident was killed in an accident that occurred in De Kalb County. A lawsuit was filed in Cook County. One of the defendants was a Cook County resident, and the other defendant resided in Indiana, but would have to drive through Cook County to trial in either Kane or De Kalb County. The potential witnesses were scattered among several counties in the same area of the state, including Kane and De Kalb Counties, although several witnesses filed affidavits stating that they would be willing to travel to Cook County for trial. There was nothing in the record to indicate that a jury view of the accident site would be necessary. In determining that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the defendants’ motion to transfer venue from Cook County to De Kalb County, this court noted that both counties had significant ties to the case and potential witnesses were scattered among several counties, including the plaintiffs chosen forum. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 526. This case is factually indistinguishable from Guerine. In both cases, the accident did not occur in plaintiff’s chosen forum, neither the plaintiff nor one of the defendants resided in plaintiffs chosen forum, and some of the witnesses lived or worked in plaintiff’s chosen forum. In the instant case, like Guerine, both Madison and Macoupin County have significant ties to the case, and the potential witnesses are scattered throughout several counties in the same area of the state. The only distinguishing factors between these cases are that Guerine was filed in Cook County rather than Madison County, and plaintiffs chosen forum in Guerine happened to be the residence of the individual defendant rather than the residence of the corporate defendant. The majority in this case does not provide any reason to distinguish between the residence of an individual defendant and that of a corporate defendant. These minor differences alone do not justify a different result here. In Guerine, this court acknowledged “the frustrating litigation quagmire created in the wake of Torres v. Walsh, 98 Ill. 2d 338 (1983), where we first applied the forum non conveniens doctrine to intrastate transfers” and, noting that Illinois forum non conveniens law is “less than clear,” this court attempted to clarify the doctrine. Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 519, 526. Today’s decision takes two steps backward. Not only does it cast doubt on the validity and applicability of Guerine to future cases, but it also further complicates and confuses an area of the law that is already “less than clear.” Since Madison County adjoins Macoupin County, I agree with plaintiff that it is incredulous for defendants to argue inconvenience in the county chosen by plaintiff. When adjoining counties are involved, “ ‘ “[t]he battle over the forum results in a battle over minutiae.” ’ ” Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 519-20, quoting Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 335, quoting Peile, 242 Ill. App. 3d at 522 (Lewis, J., specially concurring). Macoupin County undoubtedly has an interest in deciding a controversy involving an accident that occurred within its borders. Nonetheless, Madison County also has a legitimate interest in deciding a controversy involving one of its residents, Union Pacific, a company that operates facilities there and employs numerous citizens of Madison County, including some potential witnesses. Contrary to the majority view, transfer to Macoupin County is not required by the heavier court docket of Madison County, particularly when one of the defendants is a resident of Madison County. See Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 525. In taking notice of Madison County’s congested court docket, the majority relies on Bland, 116 Ill. 2d at 230, Washington v. Illinois Power Co., 144 Ill. 2d 395, 403 (1991), and the 1998 annual report of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts (AOIC), rather than on the record of this case. While the AOIC reports may be helpful, the trial court is in the best position to assess the current burdens on its own docket. See Boner, 142 Ill. 2d at 538-39. In ruling on defendants’ motion, the Madison County circuit court did not note any administrative problems in its docket or in its ability to try this case in an expeditious manner. “Court congestion is a relatively insignificant factor, especially where the record does not show the other forum would resolve the case more quickly.” (Emphasis added.) Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 517, citing Brummett v. Wepfer Marine, Inc., 111 Ill. 2d 495, 503 (1986). Moreover, court congestion should be afforded little consideration in a case that is legitimately filed in the resident forum of one of the defendants. On balance, considering the totality of the circumstances, I believe that the private and public interest factors do not strongly favor Macoupin County over Madison County. Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing, as they allege in their brief, that there is “no connection” to Madison County. In fact, defendants’ assertion that this case has absolutely no connection to Madison County is factually inaccurate and misleading. This is not a case of exceptional circumstances where sensible judicial administration and the interests of justice require a trial in a more convenient forum. See Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 520; Peile, 163 Ill. 2d at 335; Torres, 98 Ill. 2d at 346. Furthermore, I believe that the resources of this court are more profitably spent deciding fully developed controversies than unnecessarily micromanaging forum non conveniens rulings. See Guerine, 198 Ill. 2d at 520. The majority’s conclusion that the trial court abused its discretion in denying an intrastate forum non conveniens motion to transfer the case to an adjacent county is unsupported by both the law and the record. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.