Employment & Labor Law
Please select a topic from the drop down list
Chase v. Jowdy Industries
2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 16258
In Chase, the plaintiff filed a whistle-blower complaint in Broward county because that was the plaintiff's residence when he was employed with Defendant. In the depositions, it turned out that 10 days before the plaintiff filed suit, he moved to Palm Beach County. Chase at 1-2.
"Much later" the defendant made a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that venue was improper and the statute of limitations had now run. The plaintiff asked the court to either deny the motion or transfer venue to Palm Beach County. The Trial court ruled in defendant's favor stating "transfer under these circumstances would violate defendant's right to notice." Chase at 2.
The appeals court agreed with the plaintiff and ruled that:
We think the statutory venue provision based on plaintiff's residence is reasonably understood as including the time when the conduct allegedly violating the Act is said to have occurred. If plaintiff resided in Broward county when the employer allegedly violated the Whistleblower obligation to pay him wages, that would certainly seem sufficient to establish venue in that county. A plaintiff's relocation around the time of filing suit should not defeat venue that was proper when the cause of action accrued.
Chase at 3. This ruling conflicts with the 3rd Circuit's interpretation of the Whistle-blower's venue statute. (Id, n.1).
Despite the different interpretations of the venue statute, the court also held that the case should have been transferred under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.060(b). The rule grants power to the court to transfer venue when it was filed in the wrong county. The language of the statute says the court "may transfer the action in the manner provided in rule 1.70(j) to the proper court in any county. . ." Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.060(b)
The court reasoned that even though the text of the rules says "may," the "rule functions like should." Chase at 4. The court observed that other courts follow the same rule when interpreting the transfer rule of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Additionally, the court ruled that the defendant would not be prejudiced because the defendant did not argue that when the motion was made, therefore its right to notice would not be burdened. Chase at 5.
Topic(s)
