The commission created by Governor Miller to study the privatization of governmental functions recommended to him that the Georgia War Veterans Home (Home) in Milledgeville be privatized “as soon as possible.” The Governor accepted this recommendation and directed Commissioner Pete Wheeler of the Department of Veterans Services (DVS) to implement the privatization of the Home. Before the Governor’s directive could be fully accomplished, however, this equitable action was filed in the Superior Court of Baldwin County by the Georgia State Employees Union and by several residents of the Home (Plaintiffs). The action was brought against the Governor, the DVS, Commissioner Wheeler, the members of the Veterans Service Board (Board) and the Director of the Home, Mike McCroskey (Defendants). Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Defendants “from implementing . . . the privatization of the Milledgeville Home, and from otherwise proceeding with [the] study of such implementation until authorized by the General Assembly.” Venue of Plaintiffs’ action was predicated solely upon Director McCroskey’s residency in Baldwin County.
Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction. At the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants made an oral motion to transfer the action on the ground of improper venue.
Newport Timber Corp. v. Floyd,
The mere fact that Plaintiffs prayed for an injunction against Director McCroskey “does not in all events confer the right to file the equitable petition in the county of his residence, or to draw to that county residents of other counties.”
Fowler v. Southern Airlines,
The equitable relief sought by Plaintiffs relates solely to the enjoining of the proposed privatization of the Home. However, Director McCroskey is employed by the Department of Human Resources, not by the DVS or the Board, and his only official role relates to the current pre-privatization operation of the Home. Insofar as the proposed privatization of the Home is concerned, it is undisputed that Director McCroskey has no authority to approve or sign any documents on behalf of the DVS or Board and that his duties do not include “any matters regarding response to the Governor’s request . . . except to provide information to, and answer questions posed by, the Board.” It is, therefore, clear that Director McCroskey is instrumental only in administering the policy which the Governor proposes to replace with his privatization directive to Commissioner Wheeler. Although Director McCroskey will be affected by the privatization of the Home, he will have no effect on that policy itself.
In determining proper venue, it is immaterial that Director McCroskey may be a proper party to the plaintiffs’ action. “It is a question as to proper venue, not proper parties.”
Beacham v. Cullens,
“The essential fact ... is, not that a defendant residing in the county has a substantial interest in the litigation, but whether or not substantial [equitable] relief is prayed against such defendant.” [Cit.]
Newport Timber Corp. v. Floyd,
supra at 539 (2). Even assuming that Director McCroskey is a proper party to the action, his residence in Baldwin County cannot be the predicate for venue, since any equitable relief that is sought against him would be collateral or incidental at most.
Summit Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Mulherin,
Judgment reversed and case remanded with direction.
