WPC M56Z'e,vd[ G8"Q c^P߳%[#kĈ2~PKuqJ5 a`LhZC.F*EU*'ccI[?ۑyN:7Rd'ya*!(FgɏCeՠF6 "\j Y R|oF<"bԧdX@oUJ %*0\ eIvo!ޚz0N,l*qË! B.XOnoGmmq^ pMOOìfyfS0Q 6x|GrVH,ׂ%ڵZXeQ-x'~4m'jb %\UNb 0UN8j ( z d^ 6BwS 0DWa'4NE m#b 0 B 0 D5h D- 0K ASh 0. 0D A(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular R&2$      2     _ԀAlloftheclaimsinvolvethefailuretoproperly_diagnose._  R&2$      3     _ԀTheonlyissuebeforethiscourtiswhetherShelbyCountyisthepropervenueinwhichtosueDr.Wong.  AlthoughwefindthatShelbyCountyisnotthepropervenue,weexpressnoopinionastowhethertheShelbyCounty x defendantsmaybesuedinLauderdaleCountyasthatissueisnotbeforethecourt.However,wewouldnotethatthis @ questiondoesnotinvolveascenariowheretheplaintiffsanddefendantsresideinthesamecounty.Inthatregard,the X analysiswouldbedifferent.  R&2$      4     _ԀSpecifically,wedonotbelievethatjoinderunderRule20cancurewhatwouldotherwisebeanimproper  venue.Wewouldnote,however,thatourholdingshouldnotbeextendedoutsidethecontextofacaseinvolving_T.C.A._ x 204101(b). C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt/)L   R&2$      1     _ԀThereisnodisputethattheentirerelationshipbetweenthepartiestothisappealtookplaceinLauderdale  County.(#$  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5L-($XJ3|xUHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0- -(|G2&2$ !.8\dd8         0   d(|39$ !.8\dd8     VVVV)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|39$ !.8\dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ddd8     _  D8XXdd8  @ DINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#D #Ԉ ,   MAY2000Session X XXD #DXX#FRANK_FETZER_ԀMILLS,JR.,etal.v.LUISL.WONG,M.D.XXD   ` @@ InterlocutoryAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  h @@No.300304T.D.;TheHonorableRobertA.Lanier,Judge  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W199900665_COA_ԄR9CVFiledSeptember15,_2000_ '  AV) ` dE<` A      XhXXXThisappealpresentsadisputeoverpropervenuearisingoutofamedicalmalpracticesuitagainst  multipledefendants.TheShelbyCountyCircuitCourtdeniedtheDefendantsmotiontodismiss  forimpropervenue.Thecaseisbeforethiscourtonaninterlocutoryappeal.#XXXXh##DXXӒ#XXD   Tenn.R.App.P.9;InterlocutoryAppeal;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtReversedand j Dismissed  Z   #DXӛ#XX.DAlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichCrawford,_P.J._,_W.s._,and : Farmer,J.,joined. *z _DeWitt_ԀM.Shy,Jr.,WendyCoven_Feild_,Memphis,forAppellant  Z RichardJ.Myers,Memphis,forAppellees : q OPINION #DXXӠ#XXD  #DXXӸ #XXD  XhXXXLuisD.Wongappealsfromthetrialcourtsdenialofhismotiontodismissforimpropervenue.For !  thereasonsstatedherein,wereversethetrialcourtdecision. "!   FactsandProceduralHistory Z% $     Frank_Fetzer_ԀMills,Jr.andRebeccaSmithMills( Appellees)arehusbandandwifeand 2'"& resideinLauderdaleCounty,Tennessee.LuisD.Wong( Appellant)isaphysicianwhoalso (n#' residesinLauderdaleCounty.  )Z$(   )F%)3   TheAppelleesfiledamedicalmalpracticecomplaintagainsttheAppellantarisingoutoftwo  separatevisitsbyMr.MillstotheAppellantsofficeinLauderdaleCounty.   #  1      ׀󀀀Aspartofthesame   suit,theAppelleessuedfourotherindividualsandthreefacilities,allegingthateachDefendantwas  guiltyofseparateactsofmedicalmalpractice.   #  2      ׀ThecomplaintallegesthatallDefendantsotherthan t WongresideorhavetheirprincipalplacesofbusinessinShelbyCounty,Tennessee.TheAppellees ` alsoallegethatallcausesofaction,exceptthatagainstWong,aroseinShelbyCounty. L    TheAppelleesfiledtheircomplaintagainsttheAppellantandtheotherDefendantsinShelby $ t CountyCircuitCourt.TheAppellantfiledamotiontodismissforimpropervenue,arguingthat  ` Tenn.CodeAnn.204101(b)requiredthattheactionagainsthimbebroughtinLauderdale  L  County.ThetrialcourtdeniedtheAppellantsmotiontodismissbyorderdatedJune23,1999.The  8  Appellantthenfiledamotionandmemorandumforpermissionforinterlocutoryappealpursuantto $  Rule9oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotionfor   interlocutoryappeal,andthiscourtgrantedasimilarmotiononNovember12,1999.   Ѐ     LawandAnalysis p      Asaninitialmatter,wenotethatifthecomplainthadnamedonlytheAppellantasa H Defendant,thepropervenuewouldbeinLauderdaleCountyasitisclearlya localizedaction.See 4 _Tenn.Code_ԀAnn.204101(b).However,thiscasepresentsascenarioinwhichmultipledefendants  p residinginorhavingtheirprincipalplacesofbusinessinmultiplecountiesaresuedforseparateacts  \ ofmedicalmalpracticeaspartofasingleaction.Thesituationisfurthercomplicatedbythefactthat H theplaintiffsandonedefendantresideinthesamecounty,andtheclaimagainstthatdefendantarose 4 inthatcounty,namelyLauderdaleCounty.TheAppellantarguesthattheclaimagainsthimcan   onlybebroughtinLauderdaleCounty,whiletheAppelleesarguethattheAppellantcanbesuedin   ShelbyCountybecausehewasproperlyjoinedunderRule20oftheTennesseeRulesofCivil  Procedure.Thecriticalissueiswhether,byvirtueofthefacttherearemultipledefendantsfrom  multiplecounties,properjoinderofapartyunderRule20changesthevenueanalysis.    Underthefactsofthepresentcase,wedonotbelievethatjoinderunderRule20canchange X  thefactthatthepropervenuefortheclaimagainsttheAppellantisLauderdaleCounty.Inrelevant D! part,_Tenn.Code_ԀAnn.204101(b)provides: If,however,theplaintiffanddefendantbothreside 0"  inthesamecountyinthisstate,thensuchactionshallbebroughteitherinthecountywherethe #l! causeofactionaroseorinthecountyoftheirresidence.(Emphasisadded).Pursuanttothissection, $X" LauderdaleCountyistheonlypropervenuefortheactionagainsttheAppellant.BoththeAppellees $D # andtheAppellantresideinLauderdaleCountyandthecauseofactionagainsttheAppellantarose %0!$ inLauderdaleCounty. &"% Ї  ThecasescitedbytheAppellee,specificallyCommercialTruckand_Trailor_ԀSalesv.  _McCampbell_,580S.W.2d765(Tenn.1979),Woodsv.Fields,798S.W.2d239(Tenn.Ct.App.  1990),andFredsFinancev.Fredsof_Dyersburg_,741S.W.2d903(Tenn.Ct.App.1987),donot  presentafactualscenariosimilartothepresentcaseinthatnoneofthosecaseshasaplaintiff, t defendant,andcauseofactionwhichareconfinedtoonecounty.Thecriticalpointofthisfactisthat ` _T.C.A._Ԁ204101(b)isnotatissueinthosecases.Therefore,thosecourtswerenotfacedwiththe L  specificquestionofwhetherjoinderofapartyservedtoovercomethespecialvenueruleapplicable 8  toapurelylocalizedaction.Therefore,totheextenttheAppelleespresentthosecasesasdispositive $ t ofthepresentdispute,webelievethatrelianceismisplaced.  `   In_Tims_Ԁv.Carter,241S.W.2d501(Tenn.1951),ourSupremeCourtstated:  8  8  8`   We...concludethatwheretheplaintiffandamaterialdefendantor   defendantsresideinthesamecounty,thiscountybeingthecounty   wherethecauseofactionaccrued,thatthenthecountyofthe   residencesofthosepartiesshouldbethecountyofactionforvenue   purposes.p` x` x _Tims_,241S.W.2dat503.Werecognizethatthe_Tims_casepresentsafactualdistinctioninsofaras H therewasonlyonecauseofactioninthatcaseasopposedtothepresentcaseinwhichthecausesof 4 actionaccruedinbothLauderdaleCountyandShelbyCounty.However,the_Tims_decisionclearly  p statesthatwhenthecriticalfactorsconvergeinonecounty,thatcountyisthepropervenue.  #  3      ׀We  \ believetheruleespousedin_Tims_isequallyapplicableinthepresentcase.Thelanguageof H _Tenn.Code_ԀAnn.204101(b)ismandatoryandhasbeenconsistentlyrecognizedassuch.Inhis 4 book,TennesseeCircuitCourtPractice,ProfessorLawrence_Pivnick_ԀnotesthatTennesseecourts   haveadoptedseveralancillaryvenuerules.Hestates:   8  First,ifvenueisproperastooneofseveraldefendantswhoisamaterialparty,venue  isproperastoallproperlyjoineddefendants,evenifvenuewouldnotbeproperas  totheotherdefendantsifsuedindividually.Anexception,however,appliesastoa l defendanthavingcommoncountyresidencewiththeplaintiff.X    @*LawrenceA._Pivnick_,TennesseeCircuitCourtPractice62(1999)(emphasisadded)(citations 0"  omitted).Insupportoftheexception,Professor_Pivnick_Ԁcites_Tenn.Code_ԀAnn.204101(b). #l! Professor_Pivnick_ԀalsonotesthattheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurespecificallydeferto $X" Tennesseestatuteswithrespecttovenue.SeeLawrenceA._Pivnick_,TennesseeCircuitCourt $D # Practice61(1999)(citingTenn.R.Civ.P.4.01).IfthiscaseweresimplytheAppelleessuingthe %0!$ Appellant,LauderdaleCountywouldbethepropervenuepursuantto_T.C.A._Ԁ204101(b).Wefind  nothingwhichwouldleadustoconcludethattheadditionoftheShelbyCountydefendantsdoes  anythingtochangethatfact.  #  4      ׀Assuch,thetrialcourterredinnotgrantingtheAppellantsmotionto  dismissforimpropervenue.   t   Conclusion 8        Fortheaforementionedreasons,thedecisionofthetrialcourtisreversedandthecomplaint  ` againsttheAppellant,LuisWong,isdismissedforimpropervenue.Costsofthisappealaretaxed  L  totheAppellees,FrankandRebeccaMills,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.  8  /            #XXXXhA ##DXX #XXD p    `     h     ___________________________________ ,|    `     h     ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE