Senate Bill 2692

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION 11-46-13, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY VENUE AS AGAINST TWO OR MORE GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY DEFENDANTS FOR WHOM VENUE IS PROPER IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES; TO AMEND SECTION 11-11-3, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO CLARIFY VENUE AS AGAINST TWO OR MORE HEALTH CARE PROVIDER DEFENDANTS FOR WHOM VENUE IS PROPER IN DIFFERENT COUNTIES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI:

SECTION 1. Section 11-46-13, Mississippi Code of 1972, is amended as follows:

11-46-13. (1) Jurisdiction for any suit filed under the provisions of this chapter shall be in the court having original or concurrent jurisdiction over a cause of action upon which the claim is based. The judge of the appropriate court shall hear and determine, without a jury, any suit filed under the provisions of this chapter. Appeals may be taken in the manner provided by law.

(2) The venue for any suit filed under the provisions of this chapter against the state or its employees shall be in the county in which the act, omission or event on which the liability phase of the action is based, occurred or took place. The venue for all other suits filed under the provisions of this chapter shall be in the county or judicial district thereof in which the principal offices of the governing body of the political subdivision are located. The venue specified in this subsection shall control in all actions filed against governmental entities, notwithstanding that other defendants which are not governmental entities may be joined in the suit, and notwithstanding the provisions of any other venue statute that otherwise would apply. If two (2) or more defendants that are governmental entities are properly sued in different counties, venue shall be proper as to all defendants in any of the counties where one of them may be sued.

SECTION 2. Section 11-11-3, Mississippi Code of 1972, is amended as follows:

11-11-3. (1) (a) (i) Civil actions of which the circuit court has original jurisdiction shall be commenced in the county where the defendant resides, or, if a corporation, in the county of its principal place of business, or in the county where a substantial alleged act or omission occurred or where a substantial event that caused the injury occurred.

(ii) Civil actions alleging a defective product may also be commenced in the county where the plaintiff obtained the product.

(b) If venue in a civil action against a nonresident defendant cannot be asserted under paragraph (a) of this subsection (1), a civil action against a nonresident may be commenced in the county where the plaintiff resides or is domiciled.

(2) In any civil action where more than one (1) plaintiff is joined, each plaintiff shall independently establish proper venue; it is not sufficient that venue is proper for any other plaintiff joined in the civil action.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, any action against a licensed physician, osteopath, dentist, nurse, nurse-practitioner, physician assistant, psychologist, pharmacist, podiatrist, optometrist, chiropractor, institution for the aged or infirm, hospital or licensed pharmacy, including any legal entity which may be liable for their acts or omissions, for malpractice, negligence, error, omission, mistake, breach of standard of care or the unauthorized rendering of professional services shall be brought only in the county in which the alleged act or omission occurred. If two (2) or more defendants are properly sued in different counties, venue shall be proper as to all defendants in any of the counties where one of them may be sued.

(4) (a) If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state or in a different county of proper venue within this state, the court shall decline to adjudicate the matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. As to a claim or action that would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall dismiss the claim or action. As to a claim or action that would be more properly heard in a different county of proper venue within this state, the venue shall be transferred to the appropriate county. In determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss an action or to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court shall give consideration to the following factors:

(i) Relative ease of access to sources of proof;

(ii) Availability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses;

(iii) Possibility of viewing of the premises, if viewing would be appropriate to the action;

(iv) Unnecessary expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiff's own right to pursue his remedy;

(v) Administrative difficulties for the forum courts;

(vi) Existence of local interests in deciding the case at home; and

(vii) The traditional deference given to a plaintiff's choice of forum.

(b) A court may not dismiss a claim under this subsection until the defendant files with the court or with the clerk of the court a written stipulation that, with respect to a new action on the claim commenced by the plaintiff, all the defendants waive the right to assert a statute of limitations defense in all other states of the United States in which the claim was not barred by limitations at the time the claim was filed in this state as necessary to effect a tolling of the limitations periods in those states beginning on the date the claim was filed in this state and ending on the date the claim is dismissed.

SECTION 3. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage.