Motion for Change of Venue in Louisiana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Change of Venue

"Venue means the parish where an action or proceeding may properly be brought and tried under the rules regulating the subject." (See La.Code Civ.P. art. 41; Hosp. Serv. of the LaSalle v. Walters (2022) 353 So. 3d 219, 224.)

“A suit against two or more defendants must be filed in a proper venue as to all defendants.” (See La.Code Civ.P. art. 463(2); Hosp. Serv. of the LaSalle v. Walters (2022) 353 So. 3d 219, 224.)

“The declinatory exception of improper venue is provided by La.Code Civ.P. art. 925(A)(4).” (See Hosp. Serv. of the LaSalle v. Walters (2022) 353 So. 3d 219, 224.)

“Any objection to venue is waived by failure of the defendant to timely plead the declinatory exception.” (See La.Code Civ.P. art. 44; Hosp. Serv. of the LaSalle v. Walters (2022) 353 So. 3d 219, 224.)

Venue Rules and Declinatory Exception

“Under the general rules of venue, an action against an individual who is domiciled in this state shall be brought in the parish of his domicile.” (See Chumley v. White (2011) 80 So. 3d 39, 42-43; La. C.C.P. art. 42(1).)

“However, the general rules of venue are subject to the exceptions provided by La. C.C.P. arts. 71–85 and as otherwise provided by law.” (See La. C.C.P. art. 43; Chumley v. White (2011) 80 So. 3d 39, 42-43.)

“The exceptions are 'part and parcel' of the general venue provision and are no longer strictly construed.” (See id; Nitro Gaming v. D.I. Foods (2000) 779 So. 2d 817, 820; Cacamo v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. (2000) 1999–3479, 764 So.2d 41; Jordan v. Central Louisiana Elec. Co. (1995) 95–1270, 656 So.2d 988.)

“The exceptions may be used to supplement the general venue provision, and plaintiffs may choose any venue available under the general or supplementary venue provisions that fits the particular circumstances of their claims.” (See id.)

“The general rules for proper venue as to the defendant are found in La. C.C.P. art. 42. Louisiana C.C.P. art. 43, on the other hand, states that the general venue rules in art. 42 are subject to the exceptions contained in La. C.C.P. art. 71 through art. 85 and as otherwise provided by law, i.e., the exclusive venue provisions.” (See Hosp. Serv. of the LaSalle v. Walters (2022) 353 So. 3d 219, 224; Hubbard v. Pike (2007) 42,233, p. 4, 962 So.2d 1094, 1097.)

“A court should rule on a declinatory exception of improper venue prior to a peremptory exception filed before or at the same time.” (See Hosp. Serv. of the LaSalle v. Walters (2022) 353 So. 3d 219, 224; Schexnayder v. Gish (2006) 06-579 (La. 12/27/06), 948 So.2d 313.)

“As noted by the first circuit in Tran v. Drinkable Air, Inc., 21-182 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/8/21), 330 So.3d 1125, the trial court has the legal power and authority to consider the peremptory exception only if it has personal jurisdiction. If the case is not filed in a parish of proper venue, then the trial court does not have the legal power and authority to consider the peremptory exception of no cause of action.” (See Hosp. Serv. of the LaSalle v. Walters (2022) 353 So. 3d 219, 224.)

“This is because if it is necessary to transfer the suit, the transferee court is not bound by a decision of the court from another parish.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Change of Venue

“An appellate court conducts a de novo review of a trial court's ruling on an exception of venue since it presents a question of law.” (See Louisiana Pigment Co., L.P. v. Air Liquide America, L.P. (2014) 13-698, 149 So.3d 997 (as amended on rehearing 8/15/07); Hosp. Serv. of the LaSalle v. Walters (2022) 353 So. 3d 219, 224.)

“Of course, any factual findings made by the trial court are reviewed under the manifest error standard.” (See Rosell v. ESCO (1989) 549 So.2d 840; Chumley v. White (2011) 80 So. 3d 39, 42.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Change of Venue

It is well settled that “the objection to improper venue is raised by a declinatory exception. [A] judgment overruling the declinatory exception raising the objection of improper venue is an appealable judgment because it is an interlocutory judgment that may cause irreparable injury." (See La.Code. Civ.P. art. 925; ARC Industries, LLC v. Nungesser (2007) 970 So. 2d 690, 693; A P Boat Rentals, Inc. v. Am. Lloyd's (1991) 592 So.2d 1361, 1362; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Naquin (1986) 488 So.2d 950, 952.)

It is also well settled that “pursuant to La. C.C.P. art. 930, evidence may be presented at a hearing on a declinatory exception. If evidence is admitted at a hearing on a declinatory exception, the exception must be resolved on the evidence presented, rather than on the allegations in the petition. For purposes of a venue exception, the allegations of the plaintiff's petition are taken as true; however, when evidence is offered at a trial on the exception, the court is not bound to accept as true the allegations of the petition.” (See Woods v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., No. 23-C-450, at *3-4 (La. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2023); Ameriprint, LLC v. Canon Financial Servs., Inc., 21-110 (La.App. 5 Cir. 5/24/21), 2021 WL 2093824, at *2 (unpublished writ disposition).)