VIRGINIA:
IN THE FAIRFAX CIRCUIT COURT
ERIC J. BONETTI, Plaintiff, Case No. CL 2020-6840
vs. ROBERT H. MALM, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE THIS MATTER CAME before the Court on Friday, July 24, 2020 upon Defendant Robert H. Balm's motion to transfer the case to the Circuit for the City of Alexandria. Notably, the Plaintiff Eric J. Bonetti did not file a response to the motion but instead filed exhibits upon which Mr. Bonetti argued that venue was appropriate. The exhibits did not persuade the court that venue was appropriate under the Complaint.' The Complaint states and the Defendant concedes that the Defendant is presently a resident of Massachusetts. Va. Code ยง 8.01-262(10) appears to support venue in Fairfax County where the Plaintiff resides because the Defendant is a nonresident of the Commonwealth. Interpreting ยง 8.01-262(10) and ยง 8.01-262(9) together with the other provisions under 262, the Court concludes that the Plaintiffs residence is appropriate when there is no other permissible venue under ยง 8.01-262. Here, there are other categories of permissible venue. Venue exists under ยง 8.01-262(3) insofar as the Complaint alleges that the Defendant committed certain torts during this time spent
'Actions taken by the Fairfax County Consumer Affairs Department are either irrelevant or substantially more prejudicial than probative. Moreover, the actions of an agency can be as easily heard in an adjoining jurisdiction assuming such actions involving an organization are admissible in a lawsuit between two private parties, neither of whom is the organization itself. Actions taken to interfere with a business expectancy in another church located in Falls Church is insufficient to confer venue under the Complaint.
at Grace Episcopal Church in the City of Alexandria. Although the Defendant has now withdrawn from the Commonwealth, a strong nexus exists between the action asserted under the Complaint and former place of Defendant's employment in Alexandria. Venue therefore also exists under ยง 8.01-262(3) as theโ ข cause of action emanates from actions taken in Alexandria, Virginia and Defendant resided in and transacted business in Alexandria before moving to Massachusetts. The parties also alerted the Court that other lawsuits involving Defendant's family are pending in Alexandria. The Court finds that keeping this case in I.airthx would subject common witnesses to travel to different courthouses, the complaint is primarily associated with Alexandria and that with respect to overlapping legal issues, there may be inconsistent decisions arising from the different circuit courts tasked with resolving the litigation between the parties. It is fair and convenient to have this litigation heard in Alexandria. Consequently, the Court concludes that good cause exists under Va. Code ยง 8.01-265(ii) to transfer this matter to Alexandria. UPON FURTHER CONSIDERATION of the arguments presented, the Court does not find that it appropriate to award fees and costs in this matter. The suspension of civil jury trials during the declaration of judicial emergency nullifies delays or expenses that might otherwise be experienced in civil cases. Also, this matter is transferred under ยง8.01-265 and not 264. FOR REASONS STATED, the Defendant's motion to transfer venue is GRANTED and the Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this matter to the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria. 4 716 day of ENTERED this ;
,JIA,Ly
, 2020.
JUDGE, Fairfax Circuit Court Pursuant to Rule 1:13 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Court dispenses with the endorsement of this Order
Eric J. Bonetti v. Robert H. Mahn, Case No. CL 2020-6840
Page 2 of 2