An Act to create 801.50 (3c) and 801.50 (3g) of the statutes; Relating to: determination of where a defendant resides or does substantial business for purposes of venue.
Summary
AB225 would change Wisconsin’s civil venue rules by narrowing how courts determine whether a county is a proper venue based on where a defendant “resides” or “does substantial business.” Under current law, venue can be proper in the county where a defendant resides or does substantial business, among other options. The bill would require courts to ignore the presence of certain joined parties when making that venue determination, specifically parties joined under the necessary-joinder statute and insurers joined under the insurer-joinder statute.
The bill also would create a special rule for business entities. Corporations, limited liability companies, and other business entities would be deemed to reside only in their place of incorporation or organization, and to do substantial business only in the county of their principal place of business. This would limit venue choices in cases involving business defendants and make venue determinations more predictable and more restrictive than under current law.
Impact
AB225 would amend Wisconsin Statutes section 801.50 by adding new subsections governing venue in civil actions and special proceedings. Its practical effect would be to reduce the ability of plaintiffs to establish venue based on the presence of joined parties and to confine business-entity venue to the entity’s incorporation/organization location and principal place of business. The bill would affect civil litigants, insurers, corporations, LLCs, and other business entities by narrowing forum-selection options and potentially shifting where lawsuits may be filed and defended.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote details, so there is no direct evidence of debate in the materials provided. The bill’s introduction and referral suggest it was treated as a venue-reform measure, but its later status indicates it ultimately did not become law in the ordinary course and instead failed to pass notwithstanding the Governor’s objections. Overall, the limited context points to a measure that likely appealed to those seeking tighter venue rules for defendants, while potentially drawing opposition from those who favor broader plaintiff venue options.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to have centered on fairness and forum access. Supporters would likely favor preventing plaintiffs from using joined parties or insurers to manufacture venue in a preferred county, and from treating business entities as doing substantial business in multiple counties. Opponents would likely argue that the bill unduly restricts plaintiffs’ ability to choose a convenient or appropriate forum, especially in cases involving multiple parties or statewide business operations. The most affected parties would be plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, and business entities facing civil litigation in Wisconsin.
Crossfiled
An Act to create 801.50 (3c) and 801.50 (3g) of the statutes; Relating to: determination of where a defendant resides or does substantial business for purposes of venue.
Changes the residential limit for any substantial multi-family housing project not to exceed forty thousand (40,000) residents according to the United States Census Bureau.
Changes the residential limit for any substantial multi-family housing project not to exceed forty thousand (40,000) residents according to the United States Census Bureau.