Court Opinion

ID: 9391694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-02 21:04:36.651716+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:42.387326
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (5th) 220653
             NOTICE
 Decision filed 05/02/23. The
 text of this decision may be              NO. 5-22-0653
 changed or corrected prior to
 the filing of a Peti ion for                  IN THE
 Rehearing or the disposition of
 the same.
                                   APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                               FIFTH DISTRICT
______________________________________________________________________________

SAMANTHA DRAVES and RANDALL DRAVES,                    ) Appeal from the
                                                       ) Circuit Court of
       Plaintiffs-Appellants,                          ) St. Clair County.
                                                       )
v.                                                     ) No. 21-L-1011
                                                       )
JAMES THOMAS, D.O.; ABIODUN SANGOSENI,                 )
M.D.; NES ILLINOIS, INC., an Illinois Corporation; and )
RANDOLPH HOSPITAL DISTRICT, d/b/a                      )
Memorial Hospital, an Illinois Body Politic,           ) Honorable
                                                       ) Heinz M. Rudolf,
      Defendants-Appellees.                            ) Judge, presiding.
______________________________________________________________________________

         JUSTICE BARBERIS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
         Justices Welch and Cates concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                                           OPINION

¶1       This appeal involves a motion to transfer a medical malpractice action from St. Clair

County, Illinois, to Randolph County, Illinois, based on improper venue. Plaintiff, Samantha

Draves, sought emergency medical services on multiple occasions at Randolph Hospital District,

d/b/a Memorial Hospital, and/or NES Illinois 1 from Drs. James Thomas and Abiodun Sangoseni

(defendants) in Randolph County, Illinois. Allegedly following orders from Samantha’s primary

care physician, plaintiff, Randall Draves, Samantha’s husband, transported Samantha from

         1
       Memorial Hospital paid NES Illinois, Inc. a contractual rate per physician hour worked at
Memorial Hospital. Drs. Thomas and Sangoseni were employees of Memorial Hospital and NES Illinois,
Inc.
                                                 1
Chester, Illinois, Randolph County, Illinois, through St. Clair County, Illinois, to Barnes-Jewish

Hospital in St. Louis, Missouri. Plaintiffs argue that the circuit court’s order granting defendants’

motions to transfer venue to Randolph County was improper, where the court’s factual findings

were against the manifest weight of the evidence and the court improperly applied the transactional

venue analysis set forth in section 2-103(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-

103(a) (West 2020)). We affirm.

¶2                                   I. BACKGROUND

¶3     We limit our recitation to those facts relevant to our disposition of this appeal. On October

21, 2021, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the circuit court of St. Clair County, alleging defendants—

Drs. James Thomas and Abiodun Sangoseni and their employers, NES Illinois, Inc., and Randolph

Hospital District, d/b/a Memorial Hospital (Memorial Hospital)—breached their duty of care to

Samantha. Plaintiffs specifically alleged that defendants failed to timely and appropriately

diagnose and treat Samantha’s condition, timely refer Samantha to a specialist, and otherwise act

as reasonably prudent physicians under the circumstances.

¶4     Plaintiffs, who were residents of Randolph County, alleged that Samantha sought

emergency medical services at Memorial Hospital on several occasions from December 29, 2020,

to January 4, 2021, from Drs. Thomas and Sangoseni. During this time, plaintiffs alleged that

Samantha’s condition deteriorated. Plaintiffs also alleged that on January 6, 2021, an unidentified

physician “sent [Samantha] from Memorial Hospital to Barnes-Jewish Hospital ***, [where she]

was diagnosed with a parapharyngeal abscess, and underwent multiple surgeries to her neck and

chest.” As a result of defendants’ negligence, Samantha experienced a disability and/or loss of a

normal life, disfigurement, an increased risk of future injuries, pain and suffering, and past and

                                                 2
future medical expenses. 2 The complaint did not address the question of venue. Additionally,

plaintiffs did not allege that Samantha suffered a cumulative injury while in transit to Barnes-

Jewish Hospital, and plaintiffs did not provide any facts that injury or negligence took place in St.

Clair County.

¶5     On November 18, 2021, Memorial Hospital filed a motion to transfer for improper venue,

pursuant to section 2-103 of the Code, arguing the cause of action—defendants’ alleged negligent

care and treatment of Samantha—took place in Randolph County, not St. Clair County. Memorial

Hospital claimed it was a municipal corporation operated by the government of Randolph County,

with its principal office located in Chester, Illinois, Randolph County, and thus, venue was

determined by the municipal government statute (id.). Similarly, on January 12, 2022, Drs. Thomas

and Sangoseni and their employer, NES Illinois, Inc., filed a combined motion to transfer for

improper venue, pursuant to section 2-103(a) of the Code. Id.

¶6     On February 8, 2022, plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to defendants’ motions to

transfer for improper venue and attached an affidavit of Randall. Plaintiffs argued that Samantha’s

unidentified primary care physician instructed Randall to transport Samantha to Barnes-Jewish

Hospital. Plaintiffs, citing Kaiser v. Doll-Pollard, 398 Ill. App. 3d 652, 659 (2010), argued that

Samantha “continued to be exposed to the infectious condition and continued to suffer injury”

when plaintiffs drove from Chester to St. Louis. As such, Samantha’s injury was “active, ongoing,

and ‘cumulative,’ ”—that is, her injury continued “to occur at least until the providers at Barnes-

Jewish Hospital were able to surgically intervene and evacuate the infection over the course of

several surgeries.” Thus, plaintiffs asserted that “part of the transaction and the development of

       2
         Randall requested compensatory damages against defendants, alleging deprivation “of his
spouse’s service, affection, society, guidance, companionship, felicity, and sexual relations.”
                                                 3
[Samantha’s] injuries occurred” in St. Clair County while plaintiffs were in transit to Barnes-

Jewish Hospital.

¶7      On March 23, 2022, Memorial Hospital filed a reply to plaintiffs’ response in opposition,

arguing that “a drive through a county where no treatment or care was provided does not establish

a proper venue to bring this action in.” Memorial Hospital claimed plaintiffs were forum shopping

in a county that bore no relation to the transaction that was part of plaintiffs’ cause of action.

Similarly, on March 25, 2022, Drs. Thomas and Sangoseni and their employer, NES Illinois, Inc.,

filed a reply to plaintiffs’ response in opposition, arguing that plaintiffs’ 10-mile drive through St.

Clair County, which took 15 to 20 minutes, could not establish venue. Additionally, defendants

asserted that plaintiffs’ decision to drive through St. Clair County was a unilateral act and that

plaintiffs failed to identify any integral facts to the cause of action that occurred in St. Clair County.

¶8      The circuit court held a hearing all on pending motions on August 16, 2022. Attorney Dede

Zupanci, counsel for Memorial Hospital, established that Randall drove 90 minutes from Randolph

County to Barnes-Jewish Hospital, passing through Monroe and St. Clair Counties, on January 6,

2021. Plaintiffs’ drive through St. Clair County took approximately 20 minutes. Additionally,

attorney Shane Chapman, counsel for Drs. Thomas and Sangoseni and NES Illinois, Inc., argued

that Samantha was not transported via ambulance or helicopter. Rather, attorney Chapman argued

that Randall unilaterally and voluntarily drove Samantha through St. Clair County, despite the

availability of alternate routes from Chester to St. Louis.

¶9      Next, attorney Nathaniel Brown, counsel for plaintiffs, argued that the evidence

demonstrated that Samantha’s primary care physician, Dr. Karen Robbins, “advised [Samantha]

needed to go to Barnes.” As such, Randall did not voluntarily and unilaterally decide to transport

Samantha to Barnes-Jewish Hospital. Attorney Brown argued that Samantha’s injury was

                                                    4
cumulative, where the “infection started in Randolph County[,] and it continued until it was

brought under control at Barnes Hospital in St. Louis.”

¶ 10    In response, attorney Zupanci clarified the previous use of the word “unilateral,” stating

the following:

        “Unilateral in this context means the plaintiffs were the only ones acting in St. Clair

        County. So when the case law says that venue may not be established by unilateral acts,

        that means that in order to establish venue the defendant must have been acting in St. Clair

        County and there is no evidence of that because all of the actions that were partaken by

        defendant in this case occurred in Randolph County.”

In response, attorney Brown reiterated, with reliance on Kaiser, that the “focus of the inquiry is

where the plaintiff suffered her injury,” thus, “[t]he presence of a defendant or negligent care,

that’s not what venue is predicated upon.” Attorney Chapman briefly responded that Kaiser was

dissimilar to the case at issue, noting that there was “a lot more going on in the Kaiser case to

create venue than a simple passage through St. Clair County.”

¶ 11    Following arguments by the parties, the court took the matter under advisement. 3

¶ 12    On September 2, 2022, the circuit court granted defendants’ motions to transfer venue for

improper venue. Pursuant to section 2-103(a) of the Code, the court determined venue was proper

in Randolph County, where Memorial Hospital’s principal office was located and the transaction

or some part thereof occurred. The court determined that “[t]he crux of Plaintiffs’ cause of action

stems from the treatment received at Memorial Hospital, not from the drive through St. Clair

       We note that the circuit court heard argument by the parties on the issue of forum non conveniens.
        3

However, only venue is at issue in this appeal.
                                                   5
County.” As such, the court concluded that Randall “unilaterally driving his wife to Barnes-Jewish

through St. Clair County is insufficient to establish proper venue.”

¶ 13    This interlocutory appeal followed.

¶ 14                                   II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15    On appeal, plaintiffs argue the circuit court’s factual findings were against the manifest

weight of the evidence. Additionally, by finding venue improper in St. Clair County, plaintiffs

argue that the court improperly applied the transactional venue analysis set forth in section 2-

103(a) of the Code. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

¶ 16    As a threshold matter, we observe that plaintiffs’ opening brief does not comply with

several mandatory supreme court rules governing appellate review. The purpose of the appellate

rules of procedure is to require the parties before the reviewing court to present clear and orderly

arguments so the court can properly ascertain and dispose of the issues presented. Hall v. Naper

Gold Hospitality LLC, 2012 IL App (2d) 111151, ¶ 7. The procedural rules governing the content

and format of appellate briefs are not suggestions; they are mandatory. Rosestone Investments,

LLC v. Garner, 2013 IL App (1st) 123422, ¶ 18. This court has the discretion to strike an

appellant’s brief and dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with the applicable rules of appellate

procedure. McCann v. Dart, 2015 IL App (1st) 141291, ¶ 12. With these principles in mind, we

turn to plaintiffs’ opening brief.

¶ 17    Plaintiffs’ brief violates several mandatory supreme court rules governing appellate

review, including failing to (1) provide a proper table of contents, which contains the headings of

the points and subpoints in the argument section with a summary statement, entitled “Points and

Authorities” (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(1) (Nov. 1, 2017)), (2) include page references to the record on

appeal for all facts recited in the statement of jurisdiction (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(4)(ii) (Nov. 1,

                                                 6
2017)), and (3) attach an adequate appendix that contains the notice of appeal, as required by Rule

342 (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(9) (Nov. 1, 2017); R. 342 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019)). Because the dismissal of

an appeal is such a severe sanction and these violations do not preclude our review of the appeal

(In re Detention of Powell, 217 Ill. 2d 123, 132 (2005)), we address plaintiffs’ contentions in turn.

¶ 18   Plaintiffs argue the circuit court’s factual findings were against the manifest weight of the

evidence, where the court determined that (1) none of Samantha’s injuries occurred in St. Clair

County while in transit to Barnes-Jewish Hospital and (2) Randall “unilaterally” drove Samantha

through St. Clair County to Barnes-Jewish Hospital. Additionally, plaintiffs contend that the court

erroneously applied the transactional venue analysis under section 2-103 of the Code when it

concluded that venue was improper in St. Clair County. We do not agree with plaintiffs.

¶ 19   A defendant who objects to a plaintiff’s chosen venue bears the burden of proving that the

venue is incorrect. Corral v. Mervis Industries, Inc., 217 Ill. 2d 144, 155 (2005) (citing Weaver v.

Midwest Towing, Inc., 116 Ill. 2d 279, 285 (1987)). The defendant must be able to identify specific

facts clearly establishing that the plaintiff’s choice of venue is improper. Id. In considering a

defendant’s motion based on improper venue, the circuit court should construe the statute liberally

in favor of effecting a change of venue. Tabirta v. Cummings, 2020 IL 124798, ¶ 17 (citing

Stambaugh v. International Harvester Co., 102 Ill. 2d 250, 261 (1984)). Our Illinois Supreme

Court has clarified that a reviewing court will not disturb the circuit court’s factual findings unless

they are against the manifest weight of the evidence. Corral, 217 Ill. 2d at 154. “ ‘A decision is

against the manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite conclusion is apparent or when

the findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on the evidence.’ ” Id. at 155

(quoting Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228, 252 (2002)). A reviewing court may not substitute its

own judgment for the judgment of the trier of fact. Id. (citing Kalata v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., 144

                                                  7
Ill. 2d 425, 434 (1991)). After reviewing the circuit court’s factual findings, we review the court’s

legal conclusions de novo. Id. (citing Eychaner, 202 Ill. 2d at 252).

¶ 20   Plaintiffs first argue that the circuit court’s factual findings were against the manifest

weight of the evidence, where the court determined that (1) none of Samantha’s injuries occurred

in St. Clair County while in transit to Barnes-Jewish Hospital and (2) Randall “unilaterally” drove

Samantha through St. Clair County to Barnes-Jewish Hospital. We cannot agree.

¶ 21   We agree with the circuit court that there is no evidence that defendants were negligent in

such a way that caused Samantha to suffer injury in St. Clair County. Moreover, there is no

evidence in the record that Samantha’s condition deteriorated in such a way that Samantha

experienced injury during plaintiffs’ 20-minute drive through St. Clair County. Additionally, the

record supports the circuit court’s factual finding that plaintiffs’ act of driving from Chester to

Barnes-Jewish Hospital was a unilateral act. Defendants in no way acted in St. Clair County, and

plaintiffs’ actions of driving through St. Clair County did not give rise to the nature of plaintiffs’

medical malpractice action. Accordingly, we cannot conclude that the circuit court’s factual

findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 22   Next, in addressing the circuit court’s legal conclusions, plaintiffs do not challenge that

Memorial Hospital is a governmental body covered under section 2-103(a) of the Code. Thus, we

focus only upon the transactional portion of section 2-103(a) of the Code, which relates specifically

to public or municipal corporations and states the following:

       “Actions must be brought against a public, municipal, governmental or quasi-municipal

       corporation in the county in which its principal office is located or in the county in which

       the transaction or some part thereof occurred out of which the cause of action arose.” 735

       ILCS 5/2-103(a) (West 2020).

                                                  8
¶ 23   The term “transaction,” which has been interpreted broadly, “has been defined to include

every fact which is an integral part of a cause of action.” Kenilworth Insurance Co. v. McDougal,

20 Ill. App. 3d 615, 617 (1974). Under transaction-venue principles, to determine whether the facts

that plaintiffs alleged took place in St. Clair County formed a “part” of the transaction, two

dependent variables must be analyzed to establish whether a particular venue is proper, including

(1) the nature of the cause of action and (2) the place where the cause of action sprang into

existence. Kaiser, 398 Ill. App. 3d at 656 (citing Rensing v. Merck & Co., 367 Ill. App. 3d 1046,

1050 (2006)).

¶ 24   In determining “the place where the cause of action sprang into existence,” courts have

determined this to include “the place where the parties carried on significant negotiations or signed

an agreement, or where the agreed-upon action was supposed to be or was performed” (Jackson v.

Reid, 363 Ill. App. 3d 271, 276 (2006)), or “ ‘where matters occurred that plaintiff has the burden

of proving’ as part of the cause of action” (Lake County Riverboat L.P. v. Illinois Gaming Board,

313 Ill. App. 3d 943, 953 (2000) (quoting People ex rel. Carpentier v. Lange, 8 Ill. 2d 437, 441

(1956)). Additionally, “[t]his is generally the place where the parties’ direct dealings occurred

while in an adversarial position or where events occurred that altered the parties’ legal

relationship.” Id. (citing Williams v. Illinois State Scholarship Comm’n, 139 Ill. 2d 24, 69 (1990)).

Moreover, “ ‘third-party dealings that have a definite and direct bearing on the cause of action may

be considered a part of the transaction out of which the cause of action arose.’ ” Jackson, 363 Ill.

App. 3d at 276 (quoting Southern & Central Illinois Laborers’ District Council v. Illinois Health

Facilities Planning Board, 331 Ill. App. 3d 1112, 1117 (2002), abrogated on other grounds by

Corral, 217 Ill. 2d at 149). We review the court’s legal conclusions de novo. Corral, 217 Ill. 2d at

155 (citing Eychaner, 202 Ill. 2d at 252).

                                                 9
¶ 25   Plaintiffs allege that Samantha received negligent medical care in Randolph County when

Drs. Thomas and Sangoseni and their employers failed to timely and appropriately diagnose and

treat Samantha, resulting in the deterioration of her condition that necessitated surgery. On the

instruction of Dr. Robbins, plaintiffs traveled to Barnes-Jewish Hospital, in St. Louis, Missouri,

where Samantha underwent multiples surgeries that, plaintiffs claim, left her with permanent and

ongoing injuries. Accordingly, plaintiffs rely heavily on Kaiser, 398 Ill. App. 3d 652, arguing that

Samantha suffered a cumulative injury, occurring from the time her condition went undiagnosed

at Memorial Hospital to the time she was diagnosed and received surgical care at Barnes-Jewish

Hospital. Thus, plaintiffs assert that Samantha experienced injury when she drove through St. Clair

County. We find plaintiffs’ reliance on Kaiser misplaced.

¶ 26   In Kaiser (id. at 653), the plaintiffs (wife and husband) alleged negligence of the defendant

physician for the performance of the wife’s hysterectomy at St. Joseph’s Hospital in Clinton

County, Illinois. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant both negligently failed to identify the

source of the wife’s continued bleeding before finishing surgery and then failed to timely diagnose

the wife’s condition after surgery when she continued to deteriorate. Id. at 654. Following surgery,

a cardiologist at St. Joseph’s Hospital transferred the wife to St. Elizabeth’s Hospital in St. Clair

County. Id. at 653. Surgeons at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital performed exploratory surgery,

discovering the source of the wife’s continued bleeding. Id. Nearly two years later, the plaintiffs

filed a complaint in St. Clair County, where the wife’s diagnosis and treatment occurred following

her initial surgery. Id. at 654. Defendants filed a motion to transfer the cause to Clinton County.

Id.

¶ 27   In determining that St. Clair County was an integral part of the plaintiffs’ cause of action,

this court considered the nature of the plaintiffs’ claim. Id. at 659. The plaintiffs alleged that the

                                                 10
wife suffered injury from hemorrhaging that started when the defendant negligently performed a

hysterectomy in Clinton County. Id. The plaintiffs also alleged that the wife suffered injury in St.

Clair County as a result of the exploratory surgery. Id.

¶ 28   This court determined that the wife’s alleged injury was “cumulative”—that is, the

hemorrhaging started in Clinton County and did not end until surgeons stopped the bleeding in St.

Clair County. Id. As such, this court noted that any injuries the wife suffered as a result of third-

party intervening acts by the surgeons in St. Clair County could be attributed to the risk the

defendant physician’s negligence created. Id. Importantly, this court determined that defendant’s

failure to provide the wife with appropriate postoperative care constituted “ongoing negligence”

that continued until the wife was released from the hospital in St. Clair County. Id. at 662.

Accordingly, this court determined that the postoperative care the wife received in St. Clair County

“simply cannot be considered anything other than an integral part of the surgery the defendant

performed in Clinton County.” Id. This court further opined that St. Clair County had a “substantial

connection” to the plaintiffs’ cause of action, because “[m]uch of the evidence regarding the cause

and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries will come from St. Clair County because that is where she was

diagnosed and treated.” Id. at 663.

¶ 29   Here, unlike in Kaiser, Samantha’s injuries are not substantially connected to St. Clair

County. In considering the nature of plaintiffs’ claim, plaintiffs’ complaint alleged defendants

failed to timely diagnosis Samantha with an infectious condition in Randolph County and then

appropriately refer her to a specialist. Unlike in Kaiser, where the wife suffered a cumulative injury

in both St. Clair County and Clinton County, here, Samantha received treatment in Randolph

County and St. Louis City. Samantha received no care or treatment in St. Clair County. As stated

above, there is simply no evidence in the record that defendants diagnosed or treated Samantha in

                                                 11
St. Clair County while she was in transit to St. Louis. Additionally, there is no evidence that

defendants’ negligence caused Samantha’s condition to deteriorate in such a way that injury

occurred in St. Clair County. As such, dissimilar to Kaiser, no evidence regarding the cause and

extent of Samantha’s injuries will come from St. Clair County to demonstrate Samantha suffered

an ongoing injury.

¶ 30   Moreover, unlike in Kaiser, here, there are no intervening acts of third parties in St. Clair

County that may also be attributable to defendants’ negligence. Unlike the plaintiffs in Kaiser,

here, plaintiffs do not allege that surgical complications following the exploratory surgery

performed in St. Louis contributed to Samantha’s injury. Instead, plaintiffs argue that Samantha

suffered severe and permanent injuries as a result of defendants’ untimely diagnosis and treatment

of her condition in Randolph County. We note that even if plaintiffs alleged that surgical

complications following the exploratory surgery contributed to Samantha’s injury, any intervening

third-party actions that may also be attributable to defendants’ negligence would have taken place

in St. Louis City, not St. Clair County. We simply cannot conclude that plaintiffs’ act of driving

through St. Clair County can be considered an integral part of her cause of action.

¶ 31   Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the case before us is more analogous to Jackson, 363 Ill.

App. 3d at 277. In Jackson, the plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action in McLean County,

Illinois, alleging defendant physician and her employer breached their duty of care in the

performance of a bilateral ureteral implantation. Id. In finding venue was proper in Peoria County,

Illinois, our colleagues in the Fourth District determined that the parties had no direct dealings

with each other in McLean County because defendant physician provided all medical services,

treatment, and care to the plaintiff in Peoria County. Id. In addition, the Fourth District determined

that the plaintiffs’ cause of action sprang into existence in Peoria County, because the defendant’s

                                                 12
determination of the necessity of the procedure, performance of the procedure, and all

postoperative care occurred in Peoria County. Id.

¶ 32   Lastly, the Fourth District rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the tests ordered and

performed by third parties in McLean County constituted an integral part of the cause of action.

Id. In support of this determination, the Fourth District noted that it was the defendant’s

interpretation of the test results in Peoria County, not the mere testing that was performed in

McLean County, that formed the basis of the defendant’s decision to perform the surgical

procedure in question. Id. Thus, the Fourth District was not persuaded that the tests performed in

McLean County constituted an integral part of the cause of action. Id.

¶ 33   Here, nothing in the record demonstrates that the parties had any direct dealings with each

other in St. Clair County. Plaintiffs allege that defendants breached their duty of care to Samantha

by failing to timely and appropriately diagnose and treat Samantha’s condition, timely refer

Samantha to a specialist, and otherwise act as reasonably prudent physicians under the

circumstances. The parties interacted in Randolph County on several occasions from December

29, 2020, to January 4, 2021, before physicians at Barnes-Jewish diagnosed Samantha, performed

surgery, and provided postoperative care to Samantha in St. Louis City. Similar to Jackson, where

the defendant’s interpretation of test results and decision to perform surgery constituted an integral

part of the plaintiff’s cause of action in Peoria County, here, the integral parts of plaintiffs’ cause

of action occurred in Randolph County, where Samantha failed to receive a timely and appropriate

diagnosis. As such, the record before us supports a finding that the cause of action sprang into

existence in Randolph County.

¶ 34   Based on the foregoing, we cannot conclude that Samantha experienced an ongoing injury

in St. Clair County that formed an integral part of plaintiffs’ cause of action, provided St. Clair

                                                  13
County had little or no relation to the defendants or the transaction that was part of plaintiffs’ cause

of action. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in applying the transactional venue analysis set

forth in section 2-103(a) of the Code. To find otherwise would run counter to the legislative

purpose of venue that “ ‘a party should not be required to defend an action in a county that has

little or no relation to the party or the transaction that is the subject of the suit.’ ” (Emphasis in

original.) Id. at 275-76 (quoting Johnson v. Compost Products, Inc., 314 Ill. App. 3d 231, 236

(2000), abrogated on other grounds by Corral, 217 Ill. 2d at 150-54).

¶ 35    Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the circuit court properly granted defendants’

motions to transfer for improper venue.

¶ 36                                   III. CONCLUSION

¶ 37    For these reasons, we affirm the order of the circuit court of St. Clair County granting

defendants’ motions to transfer for improper venue, where the court’s factual findings were not

against the manifest weight of the evidence and the court properly applied the transactional venue

analysis pursuant to section 2-103(a) of the Code.

¶ 38    Affirmed.

                                                  14
                    Draves v. Thomas, 2023 IL App (5th) 220653

Decision Under Review:    Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, No. 21-L-
                          1011; the Hon. Heinz M. Rudolf, Judge, presiding.

Attorneys                 Nathaniel O. Brown, Weilmuenster Keck & Brown, P.C., of
for                       Belleville, for appellants.
Appellant:

Attorneys                 Kenneth M. Burke and Shane A. Chapman, of Brown & James,
for                       P.C., of Belleville, for appellees James Thomas, Abiodun
Appellee:                 Sangoseni, and NES Illinois, Inc.

                          Dawne K. Zupanci, of HeplerBroom LLC, of Edwardsville, for
                          other appellee.

                                       15