Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 9-10-31.1 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 9-10-31.1 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 9-10-31.1

TITLE 9 CIVIL PRACTICE

Section 10. Civil Practice and Procedure Generally, 9-10-1 through 9-10-204.

ARTICLE 2 VENUE

9-10-31.1. Forums outside this state; waiver of statute of limitations defense.

  1. 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:
    1. Relative ease of access to sources of proof;
    2. Availability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses;
    3. Possibility of viewing of the premises, if viewing would be appropriate to the action;
    4. Unnecessary expense or trouble to the defendant not necessary to the plaintiff's own right to pursue his or her remedy;
    5. Administrative difficulties for the forum courts;
    6. Existence of local interests in deciding the case locally; and
    7. The traditional deference given to a plaintiff's choice of forum.
  2. A court may not dismiss a claim under this Code section 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.

(Code 1981, §9-10-31.1, enacted by Ga. L. 2005, p. 1, § 2/SB 3.)

Effective date.

- This Code section became effective February 16, 2005.

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2005, p. 1, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides: "The General Assembly finds that there presently exists a crisis affecting the provision and quality of health care services in this state. Hospitals and other health care providers in this state are having increasing difficulty in locating liability insurance and, when such hospitals and providers are able to locate such insurance, the insurance is extremely costly. The result of this crisis is the potential for a diminution of the availability of access to health care services and a resulting adverse impact on the health and well-being of the citizens of this state. The General Assembly further finds that certain civil justice and health care regulatory reforms as provided in this Act will promote predictability and improvement in the provision of quality health care services and the resolution of health care liability claims and will thereby assist in promoting the provision of health care liability insurance by insurance providers. The General Assembly further finds that certain needed reforms affect not only health care liability claims but also other civil actions and accordingly provides such general reforms in this Act."

Law reviews.

- For article on 2005 enactment of this Code section, see 22 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 221 (2005). For annual survey of trial practice and procedure, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 381 (2005). For survey article on trial practice and procedure, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 423 (2007). For article, "Ten Insights Into Georgia's Doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens," see 14 Ga. St. B.J. 26 (2008). For annual survey on trial practice and procedure, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 277 (2013).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Constitutionality.

- O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31(c) was not a proper exercise of the legislature's authority to enact laws which allowed the superior and state courts to change venue; furthermore, because O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) vested power to change venue in the court, and not in a defendant, as did O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31(c), O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) was proper under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VIII, and did not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. IV. EHCA Cartersville, LLC v. Turner, 280 Ga. 333, 626 S.E.2d 482 (2006).

O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) does not automatically divest a superior court of its jurisdiction; to the contrary, a transfer of venue under the statute occurs only after the trial court exercises initial jurisdiction over the case to determine whether, 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 the state. Accordingly, § 9-10-31.1(a) remains constitutional under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. IV, Para. I. Hawthorn Suites Golf Resorts, LLC v. Feneck, 282 Ga. 554, 651 S.E.2d 664 (2007).

Mandatory condition precedent to dismissal under doctrine of forum non conveniens.

- In light of the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(b), a written stipulation, which stated that "with respect to a new action on the claim commenced by the plaintiff," the defendants will waive the statute of limitations defense "in all other states of the United States," and which was filed with the trial court or with the clerk of court, was a mandatory condition precedent to the dismissal of a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242, 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005).

O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 is not one of the specific provisions listed in Ga. L. 2005, p. 1, § 15(b) (Act) as applying only with respect to causes of action arising on or after the effective date of the Act; thus, under § 15(b), O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 shall apply to causes of action pending on the effective date, unless such application will be unconstitutional. Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242, 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005).

Trial court's dismissal of a case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens was vacated as, even though the case was dismissed before O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 was enacted, the appeal was pending on the effective date of the act and O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 applied; the trial court's citation to a case in its summary dismissal order did not show that the trial court considered each O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) factor in making a decision. Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242, 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005).

Georgia's forum non conveniens statute does not distinguish between motions to dismiss and motions to transfer, but rather states that 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 seven factors. Therefore, trial courts must consider the factors in ruling on either kind of motion. Kennestone Hosp., Inc. v. Lamb, 288 Ga. App. 289, 653 S.E.2d 858 (2007).

Strictly construing O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, the Georgia Court of Appeals holds that the statute does not authorize a trial court to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non conveniens without a written motion from a party and the required stipulation. Nothing in the statute indicates that a trial court is authorized to raise the issue of forum non conveniens on its own or to dismiss a case on that ground without the required stipulation. Wegman v. Wegman, 338 Ga. App. 648, 791 S.E.2d 431 (2016).

Trial court abused the court's discretion by dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens because O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 does not authorize a trial court to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non conveniens without a written motion from a party and the required stipulation. Wegman v. Wegman, 338 Ga. App. 648, 791 S.E.2d 431 (2016).

Seven factors must be considered.

- It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court not to address each of the seven factors listed in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a), and in order to ensure that the trial court's decision-making process was guided by the statutory requirements, the trial court must make specific findings either in writing or orally on the record demonstrating that the court has considered all seven of the factors. The same rules apply to a court considering whether the court should decline jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A. Art. 3, Ch. 9, T. 19, as an inconvenient forum in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 19-9-67. Murillo v. Murillo, 300 Ga. App. 61, 684 S.E.2d 126 (2009).

Forum non conveniens finding proper.

- In a suit by a Delaware company against a consultant with regard to property the consultant had managed in Louisiana, the trial court properly held that Louisiana was a more convenient forum than Georgia; the relative ease of access to sources of proof favored Louisiana, the witnesses could more easily be compelled to testify there, any premises to be viewed were in Louisiana, the company would not be inconvenienced by traveling to Louisiana while the consultant would be inconvenienced by traveling to Georgia, a Georgia court would have difficulty in administering the case, and Georgia's interest in the matter was insignificant. Hawthorn Suites Golf Resorts, LLC v. Feneck, 282 Ga. 554, 651 S.E.2d 664 (2007).

Fulton County Superior Court did not err in transferring patients' medical malpractice case to Cobb County because the court made written findings of fact reflecting an analysis of the procedural framework of the forum non conveniens statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a), specifically considering and weighing each of the seven factors enumerated, and the court further expressly included additional specifics with regards to those of the seven factors the court deemed relevant in the court's consideration and determination that transfer was warranted; the Cobb County Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over medical malpractice cases, and venue was also proper in that county, and because the patients made no showing of harm by the adjudication of their case in Cobb County Superior Court, the patients demonstrated no basis to disturb the judgment entered against the patients upon the Cobb County jury's verdict. Lamb v. Javed, 303 Ga. App. 278, 692 S.E.2d 861 (2010).

Georgia Court of Appeals has held that the Georgia legislature clearly intended to permit trial courts to dismiss suits that would be more appropriately heard in any forum outside the state, including foreign countries. La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc., 342 Ga. App. 454, 803 S.E.2d 609 (2017).

In Georgia, the doctrine of forum non conveniens is codified in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, which provides that the trial court may dismiss an action if the interests of justice and convenience of parties renders another forum more appropriate; the party seeking dismissal bears the burden of showing dismissal is warranted. La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc., 342 Ga. App. 454, 803 S.E.2d 609 (2017).

In a suit brought by a Michigan couple after the wife was injured when a zip line inspected by a Georgia company used in the Dominican Republic broke, the dismissal of the suit was affirmed under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 because after weighing all of the factors, the location of the witnesses, the site of the accident, and the inability of a Georgia court to compel Dominican Republic witnesses to appear tilted the balance toward dismissing the case on the basis of forum non conveniens. La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc., 342 Ga. App. 454, 803 S.E.2d 609 (2017).

Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in granting dismissal of the breach of contract action based on forum non conveniens, because the written finding of fact, supported by the evidence including lack of a showing that the computer equipment in Georgia would be necessary in the case and that the hirer had already filed a related suit in California, reflected an analysis of all seven factors. Woodard Events, LLC v. Coffee House Indus., LLC, 341 Ga. App. 526, 801 S.E.2d 322 (2017).

Specific findings required.

- Before dismissing a case on the ground of forum non conveniens, a trial court must make specific findings either in writing or orally on the record demonstrating that the court has considered all seven of the factors set forth in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a); a summary order is not sufficient. Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242, 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005).

When a trial court denied a motion to transfer venue without making findings of fact considering the factors in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, remand was required. The statute did not require findings only with regard to motions to dismiss, and it did not require findings only when a motion was granted. Kennestone Hosp., Inc. v. Lamb, 288 Ga. App. 289, 653 S.E.2d 858 (2007).

Because a superior court dismissed an action between two insurers on forum non conveniens grounds without finding on the record that: (1) an adequate alternative forum existed; (2) dismissal served the interest of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as guided by a consideration of the seven enumerated factors in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a); and, therefore, (3) the claim or action was more properly heard in a forum outside the state, said dismissal amounted to an abuse of discretion warranting vacation of the dismissal, reinstatement of the case, and an order remanding the case for further hearing. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Chicago Ins. Co., 281 Ga. App. 152, 635 S.E.2d 411 (2006).

In a declaratory judgment action filed by an insurer seeking an order that the insurer had no duty to provide a defense or coverage under the insurance policy with the insured, because the trial court failed to comply with all the factors under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a), and the vanishing venue doctrine did not apply, the venue transfer order was vacated, and the case was remanded for further hearing. Ga. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Valley Wood, Inc., 290 Ga. App. 177, 659 S.E.2d 410 (2008).

A trial court erred in denying Florida defendants' motion to dismiss a Georgia suit for forum non conveniens because the court failed to make specific findings, either in writing or orally, on the record, demonstrating that it had considered all of the factors in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) as required. GrayRobinson, P.A. v. Smith, 302 Ga. App. 375, 690 S.E.2d 656 (2010).

Although a trial court was authorized to dismiss the child custody portion of a husband's case on the basis of forum non conveniens under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-67(a), the court erred in dismissing the husband's divorce case as well because he had a right to litigate his divorce in his county of residence. Although the trial court could arguably decline to exercise jurisdiction over the divorce case under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, the trial court did not invoke § 9-10-31.1 or consider the factors that the statute enumerated. Spies v. Carpenter, 296 Ga. 131, 765 S.E.2d 340 (2014).

Requiring a finding on each statutory factor.

- With regard to a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Georgia Supreme Court supposes that some case might require a finding on each factor under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) to adequately explain the decision but cannot say that such findings always or even usually are required; however, to the extent that the Georgia Court of Appeals has held otherwise in Park Ave. Bank v. Steamboat City Dev. Co., 317 Ga. App. 289 (2012); GrayRobinson, P.A. v. Smith, 302 Ga. App. 375 (2010); Ga. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Valley Wood, Inc., 290 Ga. App. 177 (2008); Kennestone Hosp. v. Lamb, 288 Ga. App. 289 (2007); Federal Ins. Co. v. Chicago Ins. Co., 281 Ga. App. 152 (2006); Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242 (2005), the Georgia Supreme Court overrules those decisions. By the statute's express terms, the trial court is required to consider each of the statutory factors enumerated in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a), but the statute does not expressly require specific findings of fact on each factor. Wang v. Liu, 292 Ga. 568, 740 S.E.2d 136 (2013).

Denial of motion to transfer not improper.

- Hospital failed to meet its burden of showing an abuse of the trial court's discretion in the denial of its motion to transfer venue of a medical malpractice case; among other things, there was no showing that litigating the matter in Bibb County, where several of the defendants resided, posed difficulties with regard to interviewing or securing witnesses and evidence or that relocating the case to Pulaski County would allow easier access; further, since Bibb and Pulaski Counties were not at great distance from one another, it was difficult to accept the assertions that what was at issue affected the receipt of medical care solely in Pulaski County or that there was no local interest in deciding the case in Bibb County. R.J. Taylor Mem. Hosp., Inc. v. Beck, 280 Ga. 660, 631 S.E.2d 684 (2006).

In a medical malpractice case, the trial court properly denied a hospital owner's motion to transfer the case from Fulton county to Spalding county, where the hospital was located, as the physician resided in Fulton county, the plaintiff's expert witnesses would be flying into an airport there, the attorneys were located there, and the record did not show a need for compulsory process or a need to view the premises or that litigation there would inconvenience the owner; furthermore, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) did not single out medical malpractice actions for different consideration or treatment as to venue. Blackmon v. Tenet Healthsystem Spalding, Inc., 288 Ga. App. 137, 653 S.E.2d 333 (2007), rev'd on other grounds, 284 Ga. 369, 667 S.E.2d 348 (2008).

In an auto negligence suit, a trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) because the court held a hearing and evaluated the defendant's claim as to the non conveniens factors and denied the motion based on the location of the collision, the close proximity of the two venues at issue, the comparative inconveniences to the parties, the location of the witnesses, and the difficulties of compulsory process in either venue. Gowdy v. Schley, 317 Ga. App. 693, 732 S.E.2d 774 (2012).

Trial court was not shown to have erred by denying the defendant's motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens because the defendant's counsel approved the form of the order on the motion to dismiss; therefore, the defendant could not complain that the record had no explanation of the decision of the trial court so as to permit meaningful appellate review and because the record had no explanation of that decision, the defendant could not carry the burden to show that the trial court abused the court's discretion when the court denied the motion. Wang v. Liu, 292 Ga. 568, 740 S.E.2d 136 (2013).

Granting of motion to transfer improper.

- Trial court erred in granting a debtor's motion to transfer a bank's action alleging breach of a loan agreement and promissory note because the trial court's focus solely on the note and the note's venue clause was in contradiction of O.C.G.A. § 13-2-2(4); the promissory note was a loan document subject to the document protocols that were attached to the loan agreement, and no showing was contained in the record that the forum selection clause in the document protocols was unenforceable. Park Ave. Bank v. Steamboat City Dev. Co., 317 Ga. App. 289, 728 S.E.2d 925 (2012).

Dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds proper.

- An appellant's suit to collect under a contract was properly dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) where: seven of the nine appellees were Puerto Rican corporations; the hotel project involved was in Puerto Rico; evidence and witnesses pertaining to the appellees' defense were primarily in Puerto Rico; any site visit would have to take place in Puerto Rico; over 60,000 documents relating to the project were being maintained there; other cases arising from the project were pending there; a Puerto Rican court had appointed a special master; and there was a question as to whether the appellees had sufficient minimum contacts with Georgia. John Hardy Group, Inc. v. Cayo Largo Hotel Assocs., 286 Ga. App. 588, 649 S.E.2d 826 (2007).

Alleged wife's suit for a declaration that she was the common law wife of a decedent was properly dismissed for forum non conveniens under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) because the issue was already pending in a Florida probate court, where the wife had filed for letters of administration, and involved mainly Florida residents and a Florida estate. Collier v. Wehmeier, 313 Ga. App. 421, 721 S.E.2d 919 (2011).

Trial court did not err by ruling on the motion to dismiss without allowing the appellants to obtain discovery related to the issue of forum non conveniens because the appellants did not articulate any evidence which the appellants hoped such discovery would uncover that would be relevant to that issue. Hawkins v. Blair, 334 Ga. App. 898, 780 S.E.2d 515 (2015).

Trial court did not err in dismissing the appellants' complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens because the relative ease of access to sources of proof favored dismissal as every party to the suit was a resident of South Carolina and the law offices were located in South Carolina; the appellants' right to pursue the appellants remedy would not be adversely affected if the case was dismissed from the Georgia court as both parties were South Carolina residents and the alleged injury occurred in South Carolina where the money taken from the accounts was received by the law firm; and the alleged injury would have been suffered in South Carolina, and the appellees' last acts to make the appellees liable also would have occurred in South Carolina. Hawkins v. Blair, 334 Ga. App. 898, 780 S.E.2d 515 (2015).

Appeal dismissed as moot.

- Patients' appeal of a judgment entered against them in a medical malpractice action on the ground that it was error to grant a motion to transfer filed by a hospital and corporation pursuant to the forum non conveniens statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, was dismissed as moot because the patients admitted in their appellate brief that their case had already been adjudicated, and it was too late for the patients to obtain an adjudication of their case in the Fulton County Superior Court; therefore, any determination by the court of appeals regarding whether the Fulton County Superior Court was authorized under the forum non conveniens statute to transfer their case to Cobb County Superior Court for adjudication would be an abstract exercise unrelated to any existing facts or rights. Lamb v. Javed, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (Jan. 19, 2010).

Waiver of claim.

- Patients waived their claim that the Fulton Superior Court failed to make oral or written findings of fact reflecting an analysis of the seven factors enumerated in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) because they acquiesced to the transfer order; the patients chose not to challenge the propriety of the transfer ruling on the grounds they asserted on appeal, despite having options and the opportunity to do so, and there was no dispute that the Cobb County Superior Count had subject-matter jurisdiction over medical malpractice cases and that venue was also proper in that county. Lamb v. Javed, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (Jan. 19, 2010).

In a payee's action alleging that the makers breached promissory notes, the trial court erred in granting the makers' motion to dismiss under the forum non conveniens statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, because the language of the forum selection clauses in the notes precluded the makers from seeking to dismiss the cases based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens and since the makers agreed in the makers' promissory notes to waive any claims contrary to the provisions of the forum selection clauses, the makers waived the ability to seek such a determination under the statute; O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) provides for the forum non conveniens determination to occur on written motion of a party, and the statute does not prohibit contracting parties from waiving the parties' option of moving for transfer or dismissal under the statute. Int'l Greetings USA, Inc. v. Cammack, 306 Ga. App. 786, 703 S.E.2d 386 (2010).

Appellate review.

- When an appeal properly is taken from the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the appellant is entitled to meaningful appellate review, even if that review is only for an abuse of discretion. Wegman v. Wegman, 338 Ga. App. 648, 791 S.E.2d 431 (2016).

Cited in In the Interest of M. P., 338 Ga. App. 696, 791 S.E.2d 592 (2016).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1

Total Results: 9  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Wang v. Liu, 292 Ga. 568 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 18, 2013 | 740 S.E.2d 136, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 605

...Accordingly, we affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss, but we vacate the order making permanent the interlocutory injunction. 1. We turn first to the denial of the motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. When a trial court considers such a motion, it must apply the standard that appears in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (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 ....
...e plaintiffs own right to pursue his or her remedy; (5) Administrative difficulties for the forum courts; (6) Existence of local interests in deciding the case locally; and (7) The traditional deference given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...Considering the number, variety, and nature of the statutory factors that necessarily must inform the discretion of the trial court, meaningful appellate review is possible only if the record reflects in some way the thinking that led the trial court to exercise its discretion as it did. By its express terms, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 requires the trial court to consider each of the statutory factors enumerated in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), but it does not expressly require specific findings of fact on each factor....
...242, 248-249 (2) (614 SE2d 875) (2005). Although this Courtnever has said that such specific findings are required absolutely, we previously have noted the existence of such findings in the record of an appeal from the grant of a motion to dismiss under OCGA § 9-10-31.1, thereby signaling that such findings are an important aid to meaningful appellate review....
...Without such *571a statement of the essential reasoning of the trial court, we frequently cannot ascertain whether the decision of the trial court was a reasoned and reasonable one in the light of the standard set out, and factors enumerated, in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...This is not a case in which the evidence and arguments are so one-sided that, even without a statement of the reasoning of the trial court, we might find an abuse of discretion. As noted, counsel for both parties made competing color-able arguments about the proper application in this case of the standard in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
Copy

Ehca Cartersville, LLC v. Turner, 626 S.E.2d 482 (Ga. 2006).

Cited 14 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 13, 2006 | 280 Ga. 333

...Custer IV, Eric Peter Schroeder, Powell Goldstein, L.L.P., Atlanta, amici curiae, in No. S05A2066. SEARS, Chief Justice. We granted applications for interlocutory appeal in these two cases to consider the constitutionality of OCGA § 9-10-31(c) and of OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a), which were enacted *484 as part of the Tort Reform Act of 2005. [1] For the reasons that follow, we conclude that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) violates the provision of our Constitution providing for venue in actions against joint tortfeasors, [2] but that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not....
...IV of our Constitution. Accordingly, in Case No. S05A1560, we affirm the trial court's ruling that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) is unconstitutional, and in Case No. S05A2066, we reverse the trial court's ruling that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) is constitutional. 2. OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) provides that a trial court may decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case and may transfer it to "a different county of proper venue within this state" if the court determines that "the interest of justice" and "the convenience of the parties" warrant that course of action....
...The statute sets forth seven factors for the trial court to consider in determining whether to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. [13] In Case No. S05A2066, one of the defendants moved the trial court to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a). The plaintiff opposed the motion, contending that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) violated the joint tortfeasor venue provision of our Constitution. The trial court held that the statute was constitutional and transferred venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. [14] On appeal, the plaintiff contends that the trial court erred, and the defendants contend that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is authorized by Art....
...VIII plainly contemplates that, once a plaintiff has filed his or her action in an appropriate venue, the court has the authority to exercise its discretion to change the venue selected by the plaintiff if the General Assembly has enacted a statute authorizing it to do so. [15] In the present case, because OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) vests the power to change venue in the court, and not in a defendant, as does OCGA § 9-10-31(c), we conclude that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is a proper exercise of authority under Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. VIII of the Constitution, and thus does not violate Art. VI, Sec. II, Par. IV of the Constitution. [16] 3. The plaintiff in Case No. S05A2066 contends that, even if OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not violate the joint tortfeasor *487 venue provision of our Constitution, it cannot be applied to his case, as he filed his action before OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) became effective on February 16, 2005. For the reasons that follow, we disagree. The General Assembly provided that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) would apply retroactively unless that application would be unconstitutional....
...Procedural law is that law which prescribes the methods of enforcement of rights, duties, and obligations." [19] It has been held that statutes affecting where an action may be tried are procedural and not substantive in nature. [20] Garland, however, relies on National Surety Corp. v. Boney [21] to contend OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) should not be applied retroactively....
...ace where an action will be tried are procedural and to the rule that a party has "`no vested rights in any course of procedure.'" [26] For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not err in Case No. S05A2066 in holding that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) could be applied to the present case....
...ch the defendant alleges that an impartial jury cannot be obtained in the county where the crime occurred. Also, see OCGA § 9-10-50, which provides for changes of venue in civil cases in which a fair and impartial jury cannot be obtained. [13] OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a)(1-7). OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) also permits a trial court to dismiss an action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens if it determines that the case "would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state." That part of the statute is not at issue in these cases....
Copy

Hawthorn Suites Golf Resorts, LLC v. Feneck, 651 S.E.2d 664 (Ga. 2007).

Cited 10 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 24, 2007 | 282 Ga. 554, 2007 Fulton County D. Rep. 2902

...Mallery, Kiesewetter Wise Kaplan Prather, PLC, New Orleans, LA, for Appellee. MELTON, Justice. In this case, Hawthorn Suites Golf Resorts, LLC, appeals the trial court's dismissal of its suit against Dana R. Feneck on the grounds of forum non conveniens. See OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a). [1] On appeal, Hawthorn Suites contends that the trial court erred by granting Feneck's motion to dismiss because: (1) Feneck abandoned his motion by failing to properly support it; (2) OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is unconstitutional; and (3) even if OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is constitutional, the facts of this case do not support a finding of forum non conveniens....
...Hawthorn Suites first argues that Feneck abandoned his motion to dismiss for failing to raise any authority or facts supporting his motion. To accompany his motion to dismiss, Feneck filed a brief in which he made detailed arguments to support his claims. With regard to legal authority, Feneck properly cited OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) in both his motion and his brief....
...uisiana resident. Feneck's arguments and the facts of record thereby provided a sufficient basis for the trial court's consideration of whether a Louisiana court might be a more appropriate forum for litigation. 2. Hawthorn Suites contends that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) violates Article VI, Section IV, Paragraph I of the 1983 Georgia Constitution [2] because it automatically divests the superior court of its jurisdiction over forum non conveniens cases. [3] This argument is misplaced. By its explicit terms, OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not automatically divest the superior court of its jurisdiction....
...to determine whether, "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." Id. Only after the trial court exercises this discretion does OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) provide any directive regarding the proper venue of a given case. Therefore, this statute does not divest the trial court of jurisdiction. Accordingly, OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) remains constitutional. 3. Hawthorn Suites argues, in the alternative, that the trial court erred by finding that Louisiana, not Georgia, was the more convenient forum for litigation of this matter. The determination of whether to transfer a case pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is a matter of the trial court's discretion, and, absent an abuse of that discretion, the trial court's decision should be affirmed....
...preceding factors that the case should be tried in Louisiana. Based on these specific and detailed findings, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hawthorn Suites' case. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) provides: 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...
...[2] This constitutional provision states: "The superior courts shall have jurisdiction in all cases, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution. . . . The superior courts shall have such appellate jurisdiction . . . as may be provided by law." [3] We have previously ruled that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not violate our constitutional provision for venue in actions against joint tortfeasors. R.J. Taylor Memorial Hospital v. Beck, 280 Ga. 660(1), 631 S.E.2d 684 (2006) (determination by trial court that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is constitutional under 1983 Ga....
Copy

McInerney v. McInerney, 870 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. 2022).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Mar 15, 2022 | 313 Ga. 462

...462 FINAL COPY S21A1068. MCINERNEY V. MCINERNEY. BETHEL, Justice. This appeal presents the question of whether a superior court can transfer or dismiss a divorce case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) without offending Article VI, Section II, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution, which provides that “[d]ivorce cases shall be tried in the county where the defendant resides.” As discussed below, we hold that, with respect to the question of transfer of venue, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) is consistent with the authority vested in the General Assembly by Article VI, Section II, Paragraph VIII of the Georgia Constitution to enact statutes that direct the superior courts on how to exercise their power to change venue. As to the question of dismissal, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) is an exercise of the General Assembly’s plenary legislative power under Article III, Section VI, Paragraph I, not a matter of venue subject to the constitutional venue provisions....
...The venue provisions do not limit the General Assembly’s authority to provide for the dismissal of a divorce case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. However, because the trial court incorrectly analyzed some of the factors set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand the case for reconsideration in accordance with this opinion. 1....
...their divorce and the custody of their children. They were unable to come to an agreement. After the mediation failed, Jeffrey filed a motion to dismiss the divorce case in Bryan County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a).1 1 OCGA § 9-10-31.1 provides: (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...
...on the date the claim was filed in this state and ending on the date the claim is dismissed. 4 factors — the traditional deference given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum — listed in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) weighed in favor of dismissal....
...t to OCGA § 9-10- 31.1? (2) Is the provision of Article VI, Section II, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution referenced above subject to waiver by a defendant filing a motion to dismiss or transfer pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1? (3) Does Article VI, Section II, Paragraph VIII of the Georgia Constitution provide the trial court with the authority to transfer or dismiss a divorce case under OCGA § 9-10-31.1, when the case was originally brought in a proper forum? See EHCA Cartersville, LLC v. Turner, 280 Ga. 333, 333 (626 SE2d 482) (2006). 2. In construing these constitutional provisions and their interplay with OCGA § 9-10-31.1, we look to our traditional canons of constitutional and statutory construction for guidance. We generally apply the ordinary signification to words in construing a constitutional provision....
...With these principles in mind, we turn to the questions presented in this case. The first and third questions we posed to the parties were designed to discern whether a trial court can transfer or dismiss a divorce case based on a motion invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens under OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...That statute authorizes the trial courts to take two different types of action. First, it authorizes the transfer of venue over a case between counties of proper venue in Georgia when the statutory factors weigh in favor of the transfer. See OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) (“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.”). Second, the statute authorizes the dismissal of actions when a forum outside Georgia is found to be a more convenient 7 forum based on application of the same statutory factors. See OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) (“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.”). (a) The first question before us is whether the transfer provisions of the stat...
...m,” Blevins, 288 Ga. at 115 (1), we hold that while venue in divorce cases is proper in certain constitutionally designated places, the General Assembly may statutorily authorize the superior court to change venue in those cases. In OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), the General Assembly has done just that. The statute sets forth certain circumstances in which a party may move the trial court to transfer to another proper venue in Georgia by invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...I (“The General Assembly shall have the power to make all laws not inconsistent with this Constitution, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, which it shall deem necessary and proper for the welfare of the state.”). OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) authorizes the dismissal of a case when a forum outside the State is found to be more convenient based on the application of the statutory factors....
...to exercise the jurisdiction otherwise granted by our constitution, the doctrine of forum non conveniens is generally governed by statutory 12 provisions.”).2 That is, the dismissal of a divorce case under OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) presents the question of whether a case ought to be tried anywhere in Georgia, which does not implicate the constitutional venue provisions in Paragraphs I and VIII. The parties have not pointed us to any other provision in the Georgia Constitution limiting the General Assembly’s authority to provide for dismissal of a divorce case based on forum non conveniens. Where, as here, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 has not been shown to be in “clear and palpable” conflict with the Constitution and there is no suggestion that dismissal in favor of adjudication in a forum outside Georgia violates due process of law or some other constitutional...
.... under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum,’” that statute did not apply to divorce actions. (Citation omitted.) 269 Ga. at 164-165. But Holtsclaw was decided before the enactment of OCGA § 9-10-31.1, which applies to all civil actions. See Spies v. Carpenter, 296 Ga. 131, 133 (1) (765 SE2d 340) (2014) (noting that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 “could serve to modify the holding in Holtsclaw” where the new statute, rather than OCGA § 19-9-47, was invoked to support a forum non conveniens motion). 13 authority to dismiss a divorce suit consistent with the principles of forum non conveniens. Because there does not appear to be any provision of the Georgia Constitution that bars the General Assembly from enacting the dismissal provisions of OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), we hold that those provisions are a valid exercise of the General Assembly’s plenary legislative power under Article III, Section VI, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution.3 Thus, the superior court’s application of OCGA § 9-10-31.1 in this case did not offend Article VI, Section II, Paragraph I of the Georgia Constitution. (c) Though we did not pose a question to the parties about the merits of the trial court’s ruling on Jeffrey’s motion to dismiss for...
...sell the marital property and move out of Bryan County, and because he asserted that venue was proper in his counterclaim. 3 We limit our analysis to the constitutional provisions addressed in this opinion and express no opinion about whether OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) may offend other provisions of the Georgia Constitution. 14 Kristine further argues that the court did not require Jeffrey to present evidence and that he failed to do so as to several of the factors enumerated in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a), that the burden was improperly shifted onto her as a result, and that the court improperly weighed the statutory factors....
...Thus, the issue is not whether venue was proper where the action was filed, but whether there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion 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.” OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...County; and (7) Kristine was entitled to the traditional deference given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. 17 Kristine does not challenge the undisputed facts on which the trial court relied in evaluating the OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) factors, but argues instead that the court did not properly analyze two of the factors and that the court improperly weighed the last factor. Specifically, Kristine maintains that Jeffrey should have identified and presented evid...
...18 its discretion when the exercise of discretion was infected by a significant legal error.” Rockdale Hosp. v. Evans, 306 Ga. 847, 851 (2) (b) (834 SE2d 77) (2019). The second factor set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) requires the court to consider the “[a]vailability and cost of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.” (Emphasis supplied.) However, the court’s order indicates that it instead considered the availability of witnesses generally....
...(d) Because of our holding in Division 2 (a) above, we need not address the second question posed by this Court. Judgment vacated and case remanded with direction. All the Justices concur. Decided March 15, 2022. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a); constitutional question....
Copy

La Fontaine v. Signature Rsch., Inc., 823 S.E.2d 791 (Ga. 2019).

Cited 7 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 4, 2019 | 305 Ga. 107

Benham, Justice. **107We granted certiorari in this case to resolve whether the trial court properly applied OCGA § 9-10-31.1, Georgia's forum non conveniens statute, to dismiss a lawsuit filed in Georgia by residents of Michigan against a Georgia corporation in favor of it being filed in the foreign country where the underlying event occurred. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is inapplicable to the case at bar. The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed....
...Appellee is a Georgia corporation that inspected and certified the zip-line course operated by CSA. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens saying it would submit to **108jurisdiction in the Dominican Republic and it would agree to extend the applicable statute of limitations period. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1, the trial court granted Appellee's motion because the balance of private and public factors weighed in favor of adjudicating this matter in the Dominican Republic. Appellants appealed the trial court's decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals on four grounds....
...454, 803 S.E.2d 609 (2017).1 Relevant here, the Court of Appeals relied on its earlier decision in Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co. , 273 Ga. App. 242, 248 (3), 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005),2 to reject Appellants' *793argument that it was error to dismiss the case in favor of a foreign tribunal under the plain language of OCGA § 9-10-31.1. La Fontaine , 342 Ga. App. at 457 (2), 803 S.E.2d 609. Appellants' main argument in this Court is that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is inapplicable here because that statute only allows dismissals of actions to other states and not to other countries. We agree and consequently reverse the Court of Appeals' judgment. Determining whether OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is applicable to this case is a matter of statutory construction which is a question of law subject to de novo review....
...language mere surplusage." Lyman v. Cellchem Intl., Inc. , 300 Ga. 475, 477, 796 S.E.2d 255 (2017) (punctuation and citation omitted). In construing language in any one part of a statute, a court should consider the statute as a whole. See id. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 provides in relevant part: (a) If a court of this state ......
...s 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. (Emphasis added.) OCGA § 9-10-31.1 was adopted in derogation of the common law3 and therefore " 'must be limited strictly to the meaning of the language employed, and not extended beyond the plain and explicit terms of the statute.' " Wegman v. Wegman , 338 Ga. App. 648, 652 (1), 791 S.E.2d 431 (2016) (quoting Couch v. Red Roof Inns , 291 Ga. 359, 364, 729 S.E.2d 378 (2012) ). Considering the language of OCGA § 9-10-31.1 as a whole and giving it its plain and ordinary meaning, dismissing a claim via statutory forum non conveniens when the alternative forum is a foreign country is not an action the trial court may take. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) provides discretionary factors to help trial courts determine whether to grant a motion to dismiss an action or to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Based on those factors, if a claim or action would be more properly heard in "a forum outside this state," the trial court shall dismiss the claim or action. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a). Critically for this case, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (b) provides **110that a court *794may not dismiss a claim via forum non conveniens until the defendant files a written stipulation that all 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." (Emphasis added.) This requirement in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (b) shows that a "forum outside this state" in subsection (a) can only be referring to forums in sister states....
...ns defense in 49 states where the defendant could not be sued in the first place, but the defendant would not have to waive this defense in the foreign country-the very place it argues should decide the case. In sum, the courts cannot construe OCGA § 9-10-31.1 to force an outcome that the legislature did not authorize. Strictly construed, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 does not provide for dismissals of actions unless the claim should be moved to one of the other 49 states. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of Appellants' action pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is reversed....
...138, 145-146, 780 S.E.2d 291 (2015) (applying canon of constitutional doubt to adopt statutory construction that "certainly [was] not unreasonable"). I am authorized to state that Justice Warren joins in this concurrence. The Court of Appeals declined to review Appellants' first argument that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 unconstitutionally invades a plaintiff's right of access to the courts because the trial court did not rule on it....
...The court rejected Appellants' second argument that AT&T Corp. v. Sigala , 274 Ga. 137, 549 S.E.2d 373 (2001), mandated that the trial court's decision should be reversed because it concluded Sigala , which was decided four years prior to the enactment of OCGA § 9-10-31.1, was superseded by the statute. La Fontaine , 342 Ga. App. at 457 (1) (b), 803 S.E.2d 609. Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected Appellants' argument that the trial court abused its discretion when granting the motion to dismiss under the factors provided in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a)....
...n conveniens for use in lawsuits brought in state courts by nonresident aliens who suffer injuries outside this country." Sigala , 274 Ga. at 139, 549 S.E.2d 373. However, since Sigala was decided in 2001, the legislature enacted OCGA § 50-2-21 and § 9-10-31.1 in 2003 and 2005 respectively to create a statutory framework for the application of forum non conveniens in Georgia. See Ga. L. 2003, pp. 824-825, § 5; Ga. L. 2005, pp. 2-3, § 2. In reaching this result, we need to overrule Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co. , 273 Ga. App. 242, 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005). In Hewett , OCGA § 9-10-31.1 was invoked to dismiss a case from a Georgia court even though the defendant was arguing that the case should be dismissed to Australia. Although the Court of Appeals stated in a footnote that Kansas could still serve as a possible forum for the suit, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the case in favor of Australia. Therefore, Hewett 's holding that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 can be used to dismiss a case in favor of a forum in another country is overruled.
Copy

R. J. Taylor Mem'l Hosp., Inc. v. Beck, 631 S.E.2d 684 (Ga. 2006).

Cited 6 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 26, 2006 | 280 Ga. 660, 6 Fulton County D. Rep. 1395

...motion to transfer venue (Case No. S06A0402). Subsequently, plaintiff Donald Ray Beck ("Beck") filed a cross-appeal (Case No. S06X0403). At issue were questions regarding the constitutionality of the venue provisions in OCGA §§ 9-10-31(c) [1] and 9-10-31.1(a), [2] enacted as part of the Tort Reform Act of 2005 and effective February 16, 2005....
...During the pendency of the appeal, the constitutional questions were addressed and decided by this Court. See EHCA Cartersville v. Turner, 280 Ga. 333, 626 S.E.2d 482 (2006). The remaining issue is whether the trial court erred in holding that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not require transfer under the facts of this case....
...ounty and because the alleged tortious acts occurred there. Beck, himself a Pulaski County resident, opposed the transfer, challenging, inter alia, the constitutionality of OCGA § 9-10-31(c), and arguing that a transfer was not warranted under OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a). On June 20, 2005, the Bibb County trial court ruled that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) was unconstitutional as violative of 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, § II, Par. IV, and it declined to transfer the case under the criteria set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a)....
...The trial court properly ruled that OCGA § 9-10-31(c) ran afoul of 1983 Ga. Const., Art. VI, § II, Par. IV, and therefore, was unconstitutional. EHCA Cartersville, v. Turner, supra at 333(1), 626 S.E.2d 482. Also, any implicit determination by the trial court that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) is constitutional was correct. EHCA Cartersville v. Turner, supra at 333(2), 626 S.E.2d 482. Furthermore, OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) may be *686 applied retroactively....
...The hospital's contention that Beck was procedurally barred from making the constitutional challenge for an alleged failure to comply with OCGA § 9-4-7(c) is moot. See Division 1, supra. 3. The hospital contends that the trial court erred in finding that OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not require transfer under the facts of this case. It argues that the factors of forum non conveniens, as codified in OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a), support transferring this case to Pulaski County in that, inter alia, Beck is a resident of Pulaski County and given that his claim is predicated on his suffering paralysis, travel would be a hardship to him; the hospital is located...
...unfair prejudice to Beck's case if it is transferred to Pulaski County. But the argument is unavailing. As the hospital acknowledges in its brief, as movant to transfer venue of the case, it had the burden to show that the factors set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) support the transfer....
...Star Gas of Hawkinsville, 243 Ga.App. 112, 113, 533 S.E.2d 97 (2000). The hospital has simply failed to meet this burden of showing an abuse of the trial court's discretion. The trial court's order specifies that it carefully reviewed the criteria set forth in OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a), and following such review, found that the interest of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses would not be better served by transfer of the case to Pulaski County....
...convenienced by litigating the matter in Bibb County. The hospital urges that public policy considerations warrant a judicial preference for venue in medical malpractice actions to be in the county where the subject medical care took place. But OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) does not single out medical malpractice actions for different consideration or treatment....
...9-9-60, a nonresident defendant may require that the case be transferred to the county of that defendant's residence if the tortious act upon which the medical malpractice claim is based occurred in the county of that defendant's residence. [2] OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) provides: 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...
Copy

Spies v. Carpenter, 296 Ga. 131 (Ga. 2014).

Cited 3 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 3, 2014 | 765 S.E.2d 340

...Did the trial court err in dismissing husband’s entire divorce petition under OCGA § 19-9-67 (a), instead of dismissing only the child custody portion of the case? See Holtsclaw v. Holtsclaw, 269 Ga. 163, 163-164 (496 SE2d 262) (1998); OCGA § 19-9-67 (d); OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (effective February 16, 2005). We answer this question affirmatively. 1....
...Thus, although the trial court was authorized to dismiss the custody portion of husband’s case on the basis of forum non conveniens, OCGA § 19-9-67 (d), it erred in dismissing the divorce case as well. We recognize that our legislature enacted OCGA § 9-10-31.1 in 2005 to enable a trial court to decline to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens in matters other than child custody....
...554 (651 SE2d 664) (2007). Arguably, this code section could serve to modify the holding in Holtsclaw to allow a trial court to dismiss a divorce action along with a child custody proceeding. However, it is clear that the trial court did not expressly invoke OCGA § 9-10-31.1 to dismiss the divorce portion of the case and we find nothing in the record showing that the trial court considered the factors enumerated in that statute....
...dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, trial court must record the essential reasoning that forms the basis for its exercise of discretion). Because 4 the trial court has not considered OCGA § 9-10-31.1 and wife has not argued its application in this appeal, we do not presently consider its application in this case. Wife asserts the trial court was authorized to dismiss husband’s petition for divorce independently because husband did not reside in Georgia for six months prior to filing suit....

La Fontaine v. Signature Rsch., Inc (Ga. 2019).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 4, 2019 | 765 S.E.2d 340

...Decided: February 4, 2019 S18G0078. LA FONTAINE et al. v. SIGNATURE RESEARCH, INC. BENHAM, Justice. We granted certiorari in this case to resolve whether the trial court properly applied OCGA § 9-10-31.1, Georgia’s forum non conveniens statute, to dismiss a lawsuit filed in Georgia by residents of Michigan against a Georgia corporation in favor of it being filed in the foreign country where the underlying event occurred. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is inapplicable to the case at bar. The facts relevant to this appeal are undisputed....
...Appellee is a Georgia corporation that inspected and certified the zip-line course operated by CSA. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens saying it would submit to jurisdiction in the Dominican Republic and it would agree to extend the applicable statute of limitations period. Pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1, the trial court granted Appellee’s motion because the balance of private and public factors weighed in favor of adjudicating this matter in the Dominican Republic. Appellants appealed the trial court’s decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals on four grounds....
...1 Relevant here, the Court of Appeals relied on its earlier decision in Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242, 248 (3) (614 SE2d 875) (2005),2 to reject Appellants’ argument that it was error to dismiss the case in favor of a foreign tribunal under the plain language of OCGA § 9-10-31.1. La Fontaine, 342 Ga. App. at 457 (2). Appellants’ 1 The Court of Appeals declined to review Appellants’ first argument that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 unconstitutionally invades a plaintiff’s right of access to the courts because the trial court did not rule on it....
...The court rejected Appellants’ second argument that AT&T Corp. v. Sigala, 274 Ga. 137 (549 SE2d 373) (2001), mandated that the trial court’s decision should be reversed because it concluded Sigala, which was decided four years prior to the enactment of OCGA § 9-10-31.1, was superseded by the statute. La Fontaine, 342 Ga. App. at 457 (1) (b). Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected Appellants’ argument that the trial court abused its discretion when granting the motion to dismiss under the factors provided in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a). La Fontaine, 342 Ga. App. at 458 (3). 2 Overruled on other grounds by Wang v. Liu, 292 Ga. 568, 569 (1) (740 SE2d 136) (2013). 2 main argument in this Court is that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is inapplicable here because that statute only allows dismissals of actions to other states and not to other countries. We agree and consequently reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment. Determining whether OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is applicable to this case is a matter of statutory construction which is a question of law subject to de novo review....
...mere surplusage.” Lyman v. Cellchem Intl., Inc., 300 Ga. 475, 477 (796 SE2d 255) (2017) (punctuation and citation omitted). In construing language in any one part of a statute, a court should consider the statute as a whole. See id. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 provides in relevant part: (a) If a court of 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. (Emphasis added.) OCGA § 9-10-31.1 was adopted in derogation of the common law3 and therefore “‘must be limited strictly to the meaning of the language employed, and not extended beyond the plain and explicit terms of the statute.’” Wegman v. Wegman, 338 Ga. App. 648, 652 (1) (791 SE2d 431) (2016) (quoting Couch v. Red Roof Inns, 291 Ga. 359, 364 (729 SE2d 378) (2012)). Considering the language of OCGA § 9-10-31.1 as a whole and giving it 3 At common law, Georgia courts had no inherent authority to dismiss cases based on forum non conveniens when jurisdiction was otherwise granted by the Georgia Constitution or by statute....
...ine of forum non conveniens for use in lawsuits brought in state courts by nonresident aliens who suffer injuries outside this country.” Sigala, 274 Ga. at 139. However, since Sigala was decided in 2001, the legislature enacted OCGA § 50-2-21 and § 9-10-31.1 in 2003 and 2005 respectively to create a statutory framework for the application of forum non conveniens in Georgia....
...2005, pp. 2-3, § 2. 4 its plain and ordinary meaning, dismissing a claim via statutory forum non conveniens when the alternative forum is a foreign country is not an action the trial court may take. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) provides discretionary factors to help trial courts determine whether to grant a motion to dismiss an action or to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Based on those factors, if a claim or action would be more properly heard in “a forum outside this state,” the trial court shall dismiss the claim or action. OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a). Critically for this case, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (b) provides that a court may not dismiss a claim via forum non conveniens until the defendant files a written stipulation that all 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.” (Emphasis added.) This requirement in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (b) shows that a “forum outside this state” in subsection (a) can only be referring to forums in sister states....
...limitations defense in 49 states where the defendant could not be sued in the first place, but the defendant would not have to waive this defense in the foreign country–the very place it argues should decide the case. In sum, the courts cannot construe OCGA § 9-10-31.1 to force an outcome that the legislature did not authorize....
...Strictly construed, OCGA § 9- 10-31.1 does not provide for dismissals of actions unless the claim should be moved to one of the other 49 states. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the dismissal of Appellants’ action pursuant to OCGA § 9-10-31.1 is reversed. We do not address whether the action may be 4 In reaching this result, we need to overrule Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242 (614 SE2d 875) (2005). In Hewett, OCGA § 9-10-31.1 was invoked to dismiss a case from a Georgia court even though the defendant was arguing that the case should be dismissed to Australia....
...Although the Court of Appeals stated in a footnote that Kansas could still serve as a possible forum for the suit, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the case in favor of Australia. Therefore, Hewett’s holding that OCGA § 9-10-31.1 can be used to dismiss a case in favor of a forum in another country is overruled. 6 transferred pursuant to OCGA § 50-2-21, Sigala, 274 Ga....
Copy

SKALIY v. Metts, 700 S.E.2d 357 (Ga. 2010).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 20, 2010 | 287 Ga. 777, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 3007

...33-4-1(4) [1] since Dr. Metts, the insured, maintained a dental practice in Columbia County at the address to which Great-West sent the insurance policy. Mrs. Metts further points out that her choice of venue is entitled to some deference under OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a)(7)....
...sident defendants). Since the amended complaint did not seek equitable relief common to both the resident and nonresident defendants, the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction of Mrs. Skaliy due to improper venue. 3. Mrs. Metts's reliance on OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a)(7) is misplaced....
...ther to exercise its discretion under the doctrine of forum non conveniens to decline jurisdiction and transfer an action filed in one county in Georgia to another county in Georgia. In order for the trial court to exercise its discretion under OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) to determine whether, "in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard ......
...tion and venue over the action. See Murillo v. Murillo, 300 Ga.App. 61, 63-64, 684 S.E.2d 126 (2009); Davis & Shulman, Georgia Practice & Procedure, § 5:7 (2nd ed.). See also EHCA Cartersville v. Turner, 280 Ga. 333(2), 626 S.E.2d 482 (2006) ("OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) provides that a trial court may decline to exercise jurisdiction of a case and may transfer it...."); Hawthorn Suites Golf Resorts v....
...urt exercises initial jurisdiction over the case). Since the trial court does not have personal jurisdiction over Mrs. Skaliy due to improper venue, it cannot act pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens and employ the factors listed in OCGA § 9-10-31.1(a) in order to decide whether the case "would be more properly heard ......