Court Opinion

ID: 9910204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 05:04:37.515573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:51:30.583832
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                 revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                           STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

VILLAGE DRUG SHOP, INC.,                                             UNPUBLISHED
                                                                     December 14, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellee,

v                                                                    No. 365035
                                                                     Wayne Circuit Court
GEORGE JOSEPH HARB,                                                  LC No. 22-011046-CB

               Defendant-Appellant.

Before: GLEICHER, C.J., and GARRETT and MALDONADO, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

        In this breach of contract action, the issue presented is whether venue is properly laid in
Wayne County. The resolution of that question turns on whether defendant, George Joseph Harb,
was “conducting business” in Wayne County when the lawsuit was filed. Because the record
evidence demonstrates that he was not, we reverse the circuit court order denying Harb’s motion
for a change of venue and remand for transfer of the case to Oakland County.

        The venue statute that applies in this case, MCL 600.1621(a), provides that venue is proper
in “[t]he county in which a defendant resides, has a place of business, or conducts business, or in
which the registered office of a defendant corporation is located[.]” Harb does not reside in Wayne
County and has no “place of business” there. The parties agree that the propriety of Wayne County
venue rests on whether the “conducts business” option applies to Harb.

        Before this lawsuit, Harb worked as the “pharmacist in charge” of a Wayne County
pharmacy. But the record evidence is undisputed that by September 19, 2022, the date the
complaint was filed, Harb no longer held that position. Along with his motion to change venue,
Harb filed an affidavit attesting that he lives in Oakland County and “from 19 September 2022 to
the present, I have not conducted any business in Wayne County, Michigan.”

        After Harb filed his motion challenging Wayne County as the site of the case, the burden
shifted to plaintiff, Village Drug Shop, Inc., to establish the propriety of its chosen venue. “[T]he
resolution of a venue dispute generally occurs before meaningful discovery has occurred,” because
“[o]rdinarily, the underlying facts relevant to the venue issue are not seriously in dispute.” Gross
v General Motors Corp, 448 Mich 147, 155-156; 528 NW2d 707 (1995). In response to Harb’s

                                                -1-
motion, Village Drug filed a document obtained from the Michigan Department of Licensing and
Regulatory Affairs indicating that Harb was the pharmacist in charge of a Wayne County pharmacy
until September 12, 2022—one week before the case was filed. Village Drug produced no other
evidence that Harb was “conducting business” in Wayne County on September 19, 2022, or at any
point thereafter. And Village Drug presented nothing in the circuit court (or here) suggesting that
further discovery would yield evidence that Harb was, in fact, conducting business in Wayne
County on September 19, 2022, or thereafter.

        In DesJardin v. Lynn, 6 Mich App 439, 442; 149 NW2d 228 (1967), this Court observed
that the statutory terms governing venue are written in the “present tense rather than past tense[,]
and that construction must be accorded them.” The use of the present tense persuaded the
DesJardin panel that “a person is not established in a given county if he does not fit the
requirements of the statute at the time suit is started.” Id at 442-443 (emphasis added).1 Although
we are not bound by DesJardin, we agree with this analysis. “Conducts business” is a present
tense verb form. Coupled with this Court’s more current statement that “[v]enue is determined at
the time the suit is filed,” Shiroka v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich, 276 Mich App 98, 104;
740 NW2d 316 (2007), the present tense language compels us to conclude that the trial court
clearly erred by denying Harb’s motion for change of venue. This interpretation also syncs with
the principle that when interpreting statutory language, we must respect and give effect to the
Legislature’s use of the present tense. See Michalski v Bar Levav, 463 Mich 723, 733; 625 NW2d
754 (2001) (“[B]ecause of the Legislature’s choice of present tense language in defining the term
handicap, we must evaluate the physical or mental characteristic at issue either (1) as it actually
existed at the time of the plaintiff’s employment, or (2) as it was perceived at the time of the
plaintiff’s employment.”). See also Empire Iron Mining Partnership v Tilden Twp, 337 Mich App
579, 590; 977 NW2d 128 (2021) (“[T]he Legislature’s use of the present tense must be considered
when interpreting the phrase ‘is mined.’ ”).

       We reverse the circuit court’s order denying Harb’s motion for change of venue and remand
with an instruction to transfer venue to the Oakland Circuit Court. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                             /s/ Elizabeth L. Gleicher
                                                             /s/ Kristina Robinson Garrett
                                                             /s/ Allie Greenleaf Maldonado

1
  The current version of the statute meets this explanation. While some of the statutory language
has been revised since DesJardin was decided, the current version maintains present-tense verbs
to describe a defendant’s relationship to the forum. Versions and amendments of the statute
include: 1961 PA 236; 1969 PA 333; 1974 PA 52; 1976 PA 375; 1986 PA 178; and 1995 PA 161.

                                                -2-