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

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