Kohring v. Ballard
325 P.3d 717
Or.2014Background
- Kohring and Kohring sued Ballard and Oregon Orthopedic in Multnomah County for medical malpractice arising from care in Clackamas County.
- Defendants moved to change venue to Clackamas County under ORS 14.080(2), arguing no regular, sustained activity in Multnomah.
- Trial court denied the motion, relying on the idea that soliciting Multnomah County patients equated to regular, sustained activity.
- The Oregon Supreme Court held that venue determination under ORS 14.080(2) requires a qualitative, frequency-based assessment of corporate activity, not mere personal-jurisdiction-style contacts.
- Court concluded none of the plaintiffs’ proffered activities showed regular, sustained business activity in Multnomah County, so venue change was mandatory.
- The writ of mandamus directs the trial court to grant the venue change to Clackamas County.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court conflated venue with personal jurisdiction. | Kohring argues Multnomah activity supports residence for venue. | Ballard contends only core medical activity counts; solicitation is insufficient. | Yes; the trial court erred in conflating concepts. |
| What constitutes regular, sustained business activity under ORS 14.080(2). | Kohring contends solicitation and related activities are regular, sustained business activity. | Ballard argues those activities are incidental or peripheral. | Regular, sustained activity requires qualitative normality and frequency beyond incidental actions. |
| Do defendants conduct regular, sustained business activity in Multnomah County based on the record? | Kohring points to website, ads, seminars, referrals, gifts. | Ballard argues these are insufficient and not sustained in Multnomah County. | No; none of the cited activities meet the statutory standard. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rose v. Etling, 255 Or. 395 (Or. 1970) (right to change venue when action filed in wrong county)
- Roskop v. Trent, 250 Or. 397 (Or. 1968) (mandamus remedy for erroneous refusal to change venue)
- Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Taylor, 227 Or. 376 (Or. 1961) (defendant's remedy to pursue change of venue by mandamus)
- PGE v. Bureau of Labor and Industries, 317 Or. 606 (Or. 1993) (statutory interpretation framework for ORS 14.080(2) and related provisions)
- State v. Gaines, 346 Or. 160 (Or. 2009) (statutory construction and interpretation principles)
- State v. Cloutier, 351 Or. 68 (Or. 2011) (interpretation of statutory terms under venue context)
- Verd v. Superior Court, 31 Wash. 2d 625 (Wash. 1948) (solicitation insufficient for jurisdiction absent regular flow)