Sierra Tucson Crc Health Group v. Louise Litwack, 282 P.3d 1275

Litwack filed a wrongful-death action in Pima County on behalf of herself and her three children after Kenneth Litwack disappeared from Sierra Tucson’s facility and was found deceased on Sierra Tucson property.
Sierra Tucson moved for statutory transfer of venue to Pinal County under A.R.S. § 12-404, asserting Pinal County was the proper venue due to the company’s principal place of business and lack of property in Pima County.
Litwack stated no objection to transfer and sought to have the Clerk facilitate transfer, but later moved to amend the complaint to add a Pima County resident (Sombrero) as a defendant to keep venue in Pima.
The trial court granted Litwack’s motion to amend on March 8, 2012, thereby maintaining Pima County as proper venue, and denied Sierra Tucson’s transfer motion.
This special action challenges the trial court’s ruling, arguing that § 12-404 requires mandatory transfer when a defendant timely files an affidavit and a plaintiff does not timely file a controverting affidavit; the amendment to add Sombrero did not cure the venue deficiency.
The Arizona Court of Appeals ultimately reverses, holding that the defendant’s properly filed § 12-404(A) affidavit and lack of timely controverting affidavit mandate transfer to the proper county, and the amended complaint filed after the deadline cannot cure the venue defect; the amended complaint is stricken and the case must be transferred to Pinal County.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 12-404 requires mandatory transfer and precludes curing the venue defect by late amendment.	Litwack argues amendment could cure venue and preserve Pima County.	Sierra Tucson argues the statute mandatorily transfers and prohibits curing after the deadline.	Yes; transfer mandatory; late amendment cannot cure.
Whether Litwack could amend to add Sombrero and thus keep Pima County venue.	Litwack contends amendment could maintain Pima venue.	Sierra Tucson contends amendment cannot override § 12-404’s effect.	Amendment cannot defeat mandatory transfer; lacks authority to cure venue.
Whether the trial court properly applied Rule 15(a) timing in permitting the amendment.	Litwack relies on Rule 15(a) as allowing amendment as of right.	Sierra Tucson argues constraint by § 12-404 and timing; amendments here post-deadline improper.	Rule 15(a) timing does not cure § 12-404 deficiency; amendment after deadline invalid.

Reilly v. Superior Court, 141 Ariz. 540 (App. 1984) (mandatory transfer when no timely controverting affidavit)
Santa Cruz Ranch v. Superior Court, 76 Ariz. 19 (1953) (divestiture of jurisdiction to transfer when affidavit unopposed)
Miles v. Wright, 22 Ariz. 73 (1920) (early venue-transfer principles under § 12-404)
Morgan v. Foreman, 193 Ariz. 405 (2000) (interpretation of § 12-404 and transfer mandates)
Lakritz v. Superior Court, 179 Ariz. 598 (App. 1994) (timing and effect of venue-affidavit provisions)
Campbell v. Deddens, 21 Ariz. App. 295 (1974) (scope of § 12-404 and transfer mechanics)
Keddie, 132 Ariz. 552 (1982) (venue issues not jurisdictional in certain contexts)
Sil-Flo Corp. v. Bowen, 98 Ariz. 77 (1965) (venue-related doctrines and procedural rules)
James R. Brathovde Family Trust, 187 Ariz. 318 (App. 1996) (proper application of transfer statutes)
ChartOne, Inc. v. Bernini, 207 Ariz. 162 (App. 2004) (interpretation of procedural rules; relevance to venue)
Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Burke, 204 Ariz. 251 (2003) (abuse of discretion when legal error affects outcome)