The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed and remanded a district court order that granted a motion to change the venue of a case from Nye County to Clark County based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The district court had determined that courtroom facilities in Pahrump were inadequate for the trial. However, the Supreme Court found that the district court abused its discretion by not providing sufficient evidence to support the venue change, failing to properly analyze the adequacy of courtroom facilities per applicable law, and neglecting to consider docket congestion in Clark County.
The case originated from a 2003 fire that destroyed the Mountain View Recreation Center in Pahrump, allegedly caused by an overheating deep fat fryer and a malfunctioning sprinkler system. Mountain View Recreation, Inc. filed a complaint in December 2005 against several defendants, including the fryer manufacturer, the propane provider, and the sprinkler system installer. In February 2010, a motion for change of venue was filed by Proflame, arguing that pretrial publicity would hinder finding an impartial jury in Pahrump and that a trial in Clark County would be more convenient for witnesses. Proflame's arguments lacked supporting evidence, citing factors like prior litigation taking place in Las Vegas and the location of physical evidence, but did not establish the necessity for a venue change.
Imperial did not file a separate motion, and the respondents’ argument to uphold the district court's decision on appeal is rejected, as an impartial jury determination is only appropriate after jury selection efforts. Mountain View opposed Proflame's motion for a venue change, arguing Proflame lacked evidence supporting the claim that a transfer to Clark County would be more convenient for witnesses or serve justice better. The district court declined to change the venue due to concerns about seating an impartial jury and noted the inadequacy of courtroom facilities in Pahrump, as well as the impending dismissal of the action due to NRCP 41(e)'s five-year rule. Mountain View proposed that Nye County should provide trial facilities in Pahrump or suggested Tonopah as an alternative to Las Vegas. The district court ordered supplemental briefs to examine whether it needed to seek alternative facilities in Nye County. Mountain View argued that under Angell v. Eighth Judicial District Court, Nye County must provide adequate facilities for trial, while Imperial and Proflame contended that Angell was inapplicable and that both Pahrump and Tonopah lacked sufficient facilities for the trial's requirements. Ultimately, the district court granted Proflame's motion for a change of venue, citing the inadequacy of Pahrump's facilities for the trial's size and complexity. The court rejected Mountain View's alternative facility suggestions for lack of adequate security and logistical support. The court, having ruled out Pahrump, considered whether to move the case to Las Vegas or Tonopah, noting Las Vegas's proximity and the location of evidence relevant to the trial.
The district court decided to transfer the trial from Tonopah to Clark County under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, despite recognizing Mountain View's preference for the original venue. Mountain View challenged this decision, arguing that the court abused its discretion due to the lack of supporting evidence from the respondents regarding the benefits of transferring the trial, the court's failure to acknowledge Nye County's obligation to provide adequate litigation facilities, and the congestion of Clark County's docket. The appellate court reviews such transfers for abuse of discretion and noted that the doctrine is governed by NRS 13.050, which permits a change of venue only if it significantly promotes witness convenience and justice, and only under exceptional circumstances. Mountain View asserted that general claims of inconvenience were insufficient without specific factual support, which the respondents failed to provide. Arguments citing the proximity of witnesses to Las Vegas did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances, nor did they substantiate claims of inconvenience adequately. The appellate court emphasized that modern travel considerations diminish the relevance of distance, concluding that the evidence presented did not justify the venue change.
The record lacks affidavits or evidence from witnesses to show how they would be inconvenienced by a trial in Pahrump. The district court did not adequately explain how moving the trial to Las Vegas would better serve witness convenience or justice. Consequently, reliance on the forum non conveniens doctrine is unsupported by the evidence. The court's decision to relocate the trial was partly based on perceived inadequacies of courtroom facilities in Pahrump, despite Mountain View's argument that Nye County should have ensured adequate facilities under NRS 3.100(2). The referenced case, Angell, illustrates that courts can direct counties to provide necessary accommodations, but the court denied mandamus relief due to insufficient evidence regarding facility adequacy. The court must now evaluate if existing facilities are sufficient or can be made so with minor adjustments, and if not, explore alternative facilities within the county. In this case, the district court failed to substantiate its claims about the inadequacy of courtroom facilities in Pahrump or Tonopah and did not consider suggested alternatives. The court did not provide specific information about the availability or capacity of the facilities and overlooked that there was still ample time to schedule the trial before the five-year deadline.
The district court did not analyze whether Nye County fulfilled its obligation to provide adequate or alternative courtroom facilities as required under Angell and NRS 3.100(2). The court ruled that alternative facilities in Pahrump would be unsuitable for jurors, leading to a transfer of the case to Las Vegas without evidentiary support or sufficient analysis. Specifically, there was no examination of whether Tonopah could serve as an adequate alternative facility, and the court solely noted the distance issue. This lack of proper analysis constituted an abuse of discretion.
Additionally, Mountain View argued that the district court neglected to consider the court schedule and docket congestion in Clark County prior to changing the venue. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that the forum non conveniens doctrine should not be employed to address court congestion. The district court acknowledged its own congested docket but did not assess whether the trial would proceed more swiftly in the proposed venue. The burden to prove that the venue was maintainable in Clark County rested with the party seeking the transfer, but the record did not show that this burden was met. There was also no indication that the district court evaluated the docket congestion in Clark County before making its decision, leading to another abuse of discretion.
Consequently, the order granting the change of venue was reversed, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings. Furthermore, Mountain View's challenge regarding the denial of its motion for reconsideration was deemed moot, as the motion was filed after the notice of appeal, divesting the district court of jurisdiction to act on it. Arguments raised in a motion for reconsideration can only be reviewed if the district court addressed them before the notice of appeal was filed.
