Motion for Change of Venue in Arizona

What Is a Motion for Change of Venue?

Background

“Venue may be changed when necessary to secure to parties fair and impartial trials of causes, to promote the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice, or for other good and sufficient cause, to be determined by the court.” (See Rohan Mgmt., Inc. v. Jantzen (2019) 436 P.3d 491, 495.)

“A venue change [is permitted] if the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change, or for other good and sufficient cause, to be determined by the court." (See A.R.S. § 12-406(B)(2), (3); Dunn v. Carruth (1989) 162 Ariz. 478, 480.)

“When a proper request for a change of venue has been made, it is mandatory that the cause be transferred.” (See Campbell v. Deddens (1974) 21 Ariz. App. 295, 297.)

"However, unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”(See Manoukian v. Manoukian, 1 CA-CV 21-0477 FC, at *3 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 12, 2022).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A plaintiff bringing an action against the state still must comply with the general venue statute, A.R.S. § 12-401, or be subject to a motion to dismiss for improper venue, see rule 12(b)(3), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, or a motion for venue change under A.R.S. § 12-404 (actions filed in wrong county).” (See Dunn v. Carruth (1989)162 Ariz. 478, 480.)

“We note that A.R.S. § 12-411(A) prohibits more than one change of venue per action.” (See id.)

“[A]n alternative forum ordinarily exists when the defendant is amenable to service of process in the foreign forum." (See Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp. (2001) 236 F.3d 1137, 1143 [citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235, 254 n.22; Esquer v. Ruiz (In re Marriage of Esquer), No. 1 CA-CV 17-0391 FC, at *4 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2018).)

“When determining whether the alternative forum is more convenient, the court must balance private and public reasons of convenience.” (See Esquer v. Ruiz (In re Marriage of Esquer), No. 1 CA-CV 17-0391 FC, at *4 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 6, 2018).)

“Relevant private interests are the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; . . . and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive." (See id.)

“Public interests include court congestion, the prospect of imposing jury duty on a community that lacks a relationship to the litigation, and the "appropriateness . . . in having the trial . . . in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.” (See id.)

“Where factors of convenience are closely balanced, the plaintiff is entitled to its choice of forum.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The trial court has great discretion in controlling the conduct of a trial." (See Rutledge v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents (1985) 147 Ariz. 534, 543; Simon v. Simon, No. 1 CA-CV 15-0496 FC, at *6 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 19, 2016).)

“Venue is a privilege that permits one in whose favor it runs to have a case tried at a convenient place; it is personal and unless asserted may be waived.” (See In re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-117258, 163 Ariz. 484, 485 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).)

“Change of venue is not a matter of right but is within the sound discretion of the court.” (See Arizona Water Company v. City of Yuma (1968) 7 Ariz. App. 53, 55.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that pursuant to Section 12-406(B)(2) “venue may be changed when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change." (See A.R.S. subsection 12-406(B)(2); Curtis v. Richardson (2006) 212 Ariz. 308, 311.)

It is also well settled that “a venue selection provision is enforceable as long as it is not the result of unfair bargaining or so unreasonable that the plaintiff would be deprived of his or her day in court.” (See Sierra Tucson, Inc. v. Bergin (2016) 372 P.3d 1031, 1034 n.2.)

Dockets for Motion for Change of Venue in Arizona

Sort By

ONEMAIN FINANCIAL GROUP vs ANDERSON

Filed

May 14, 2024

Status

Active

Court

Pinal County

County

Pinal County, AZ

Case #