Desoto Gathering Co. v. Ramsey
2016 Ark. 22
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (the Ramseys and others) sued DeSoto Gathering Co., LLC in Faulkner County alleging compressor stations (in White and Van Buren Counties) emitted pollutants, noise, and vibrations causing nuisance, trespass, and personal injury; they sought compensatory and punitive damages.
- DeSoto moved to dismiss or transfer under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), arguing venue was improper in Faulkner County because the harms occurred near real property in White and Van Buren Counties or where the injuries occurred.
- The Faulkner County Circuit Court denied DeSoto’s motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue.
- DeSoto petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition to prevent further proceedings in Faulkner County, contending the circuit court lacked jurisdiction because venue was improper.
- The Supreme Court majority denied the writ, holding the circuit court had jurisdiction (DeSoto’s principal place of business is in Faulkner County), venue was a pleadings-based issue the circuit court could decide, and an appeal after final order remained available.
- A dissent argued the Court departed from long-standing Arkansas practice treating writs of prohibition as the appropriate vehicle to resolve venue disputes on undisputed pleadings and would have granted relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a writ of prohibition is available to prevent proceedings after denial of a motion to dismiss for improper venue | Writ not warranted; circuit court can decide venue and denial is within discretion; appeal after final order available | Writ proper because venue is jurisdictional over the person and prior precedent permits prohibition where venue is improperly laid | Denied: writ is preventive not corrective; circuit court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and the venue question could be raised on appeal after final order |
| Whether Faulkner County was wholly without jurisdiction due to venue statutes | Plaintiffs: venue proper in Faulkner because DeSoto’s principal place of business is in Conway | DeSoto: venue required where real property (White/Van Buren) or where injury occurred, so Faulkner improper | Held: Faulkner County not wholly without jurisdiction — pleadings alleged DeSoto’s principal place of business in Faulkner County, supporting venue there |
| Whether every improper-venue claim implicates jurisdiction warranting prohibition | N/A (court evaluates whether prohibition standard met) | Argues that not every improper venue claim equals lack of jurisdiction; prohibition limited to cases wholly without jurisdiction | Held: Not every improper-venue claim implicates jurisdiction; prohibition is extraordinary and penalizes only where court wholly without jurisdiction or no adequate remedy by appeal |
| Proper procedural remedy for contested venue rulings | Plaintiffs: deny writ; allow circuit court to proceed; appeal after final judgment | DeSoto: immediate writ appropriate to prevent trial in wrong venue | Held: appeal after final order is an adequate remedy; interlocutory prohibition would expand extraordinary writ use improperly |
Key Cases Cited
- McGlothlin v. Kemp, 314 Ark. 495 (1993) (writ of prohibition is extraordinary and proper only when trial court lacks jurisdiction and facts are undisputed)
- White v. Palo, 2011 Ark. 126 (2011) (writ appropriate when circuit court is wholly without jurisdiction)
- Ark. Game & Fish Comm’n v. Mills, 371 Ark. 317 (2007) (denial of writ when pleadings supported venue and appeal remained available)
- Centerpoint Energy, Inc. v. Miller Cty. Cir. Ct., 372 Ark. 343 (2008) (writ granted where circuit court lacked jurisdiction due to exclusive administrative jurisdiction or absent statutory venue)
- Premium Aircraft Parts, LLC v. Cir. Ct. of Carroll Cty., 347 Ark. 977 (2002) (writ granted where circuit court was wholly without jurisdiction under venue statutes)
- Evans v. Blankenship, 374 Ark. 104 (2008) (prohibition not issued to correct erroneous exercise of jurisdiction)
- Prairie Implement Co. v. Cir. Ct. of Prairie Cty., 311 Ark. 200 (1992) (writ appropriate to challenge venue when issue depends on undisputed pleadings)
- Steve Standridge Ins., Inc. v. Langston, 321 Ark. 331 (1995) (reaffirming tradition of issuing writs when venue improperly laid)