Jerri Boling Bacino v. Hospital 1 (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be FILED
regarded as precedent or cited before any Jul 30 2019, 9:15 am
court except for the purpose of establishing CLERK
the defense of res judicata, collateral Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
John F. Townsend, III DOCTOR 1, MEDICAL PRACTICE
Townsend & Townsend, LLP 1 AND MEDICAL PRACTICE 2
Indianapolis, Indiana Jon M. Pinnick
Schultz & Pogue, LLP
Indianapolis Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
DOCTOR 2
Benjamin D. Ice
Barrett & McNagny LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES
HOSPITAL 1, DOCTOR 3, DOCTOR
4, AND HOSPITAL 3
Jason A. Scheele
Lauren R. Deitrich
Rothberg Logan & Warsco LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
DOCTOR 5 AND MEDICAL
PRACTICE 4
William A. Ramsey
Barrett & McNagny LLP
Fort Wayne, Indiana
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
HOSPITAL 2
Charles W. McNagny
Fort Wayne, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2779 | July 30, 2019 Page 1 of 4
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
MEDICAL PRACTICE 3
Sharon L. Stanzione
Brandon T. Miller
Johnson & Bell
Crown Point, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jerri Boling Bacino, July 30, 2019
Appellant-Plaintiff, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CT-2779
v. Interlocutory Appeal from the
Marion Superior Court
Hospital 1, et al., The Honorable David J. Dreyer,
Appellees-Defendants. Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
49D01-1810-CT-39313
Bailey, Judge.
Case Summary
[1] Jerri Boling Bacino (“Bacino”) filed a complaint against twelve anonymous
defendants, alleging medical malpractice.1 Bacino filed the complaint in
Marion County, the location of registered agents for two defendants. Certain
1
The defendants were anonymously named because the lawsuit was initiated before a medical review panel
issued an opinion on the matter. See Ind. Code § 34-18-8-7 (authorizing the instant procedure).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2779 | July 30, 2019 Page 2 of 4
defendants then moved to transfer the case to Allen County, claiming Allen
County was a preferred venue under Indiana Trial Rule 75(A) and Marion
County was not a preferred venue. The motion was granted. Bacino now
challenges the decision to transfer the case to Allen County, bringing an
interlocutory appeal as of right pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 14(A)(8).
[2] We affirm.
Discussion and Decision
[3] A plaintiff may bring a case in any county. Ind Trial Rule 75(A). However, if
the plaintiff’s selected county is not a preferred venue, a defendant may request
that the case be transferred to a preferred venue. Id. Upon a proper request, the
court “shall order the case transferred” to the defendant’s requested venue. Id.[4] In granting the instant motion to transfer, the trial court ruled on a paper
record. Thus, our review of any predicate factual determination is de novo.
Equicor Dev., Inc. v. Westfield-Washington Twp. Plan Comm’n, 758 N.E.2d 34, 37
(Ind. 2001). Moreover, this appeal turns on whether Marion County is a
preferred venue, a question of law we review de novo. See Morrison v. Vasquez,
124 N.E.3d 1217, 1219 (Ind. 2019).
[5] Preferred venue status is determined with reference to the time an action was
filed. E.g., Shelton v. Wick, 715 N.E.2d 890, 894 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), trans.
denied. Our Trial Rule 75(A) sets forth a list of preferred venues, one of which
is “the county where . . . the principal office of a defendant organization is
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2779 | July 30, 2019 Page 3 of 4
located.” T.R. 75(A)(4). Bacino claims the location of an entity’s registered
agent is the location of its principal office. Because at least one defendant had a
registered agent in Marion County, she argues the county is a preferred venue.
[6] There was caselaw supporting Bacino’s proffered interpretation of “principal
office”—but it is no longer good law. See Morrison, 124 N.E.3d at 1219-22
(discussing past interpretations of “principal office”). Indeed, business statutes
effective January 2018 (1) define “principal office” as “the principal executive
office of an entity, whether or not the office is located in Indiana,” I.C. § 23-0.5-
1.5-29, and (2) specify that the address of a registered agent “does not determine
venue in an action or a proceeding involving the entity,” I.C. § 23-0.5-4-12. In
light of these statutes, the Indiana Supreme Court recently held that “the
location of the registered agent no longer determines preferred venue for either
domestic or foreign corporations.” Morrison, 124 N.E.3d at 1222. That holding
controls. Thus, Marion County was not a preferred venue due to the location
of a defendant’s registered agent. Bacino has presented no other basis for
establishing preferred venue in Marion County, and has presented no argument
demonstrating Allen County was not a preferred venue.
[7] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CT-2779 | July 30, 2019 Page 4 of 4