Utah Supreme Court
Which venue rule applies when defendants are subject to different venue statutes? Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Co. v. Memmott Explained
Summary
Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Company petitioned for mandamus to transfer venue from Davis County to Salt Lake County in a declaratory judgment action involving newspaper joint operating agreements. The dispute involved multiple parties with different contractual relationships, creating conflicting venue provisions.
Analysis
In Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Co. v. Memmott, the Utah Supreme Court addressed a complex venue question arising when multiple defendants in the same action are subject to different venue statutes. The case provides important guidance for practitioners handling multi-defendant litigation with varying legal relationships.
Background and Facts
Deseret News Publishing Corporation sued both Kearns-Tribune, L.L.C. and Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Corporation in Davis County, seeking declaratory judgment regarding rights under newspaper joint operating agreements. The plaintiff had a direct contractual relationship with Kearns-Tribune under a joint operating agreement, but only an indirect relationship with Salt Lake Tribune Publishing through management and option agreements. Salt Lake Tribune Publishing moved to transfer venue to Salt Lake County, arguing Davis County was improper.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was which venue statute controlled when different statutes applied to co-defendants. Utah Code section 78-13-4 allowed venue where contractual obligations were to be performed, potentially supporting Davis County venue for the contractual claims. However, section 78-13-7’s general residency rule would require Salt Lake County venue for the tortious interference claims against Salt Lake Tribune Publishing.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court held that when different venue provisions apply to multiple defendants, the general residency-based venue rule takes precedence. The court reasoned that contract performance venue operates as an exception to the general rule, and exceptions should not override the general principle when conflicts arise. Since both defendants resided in Salt Lake County, venue was proper there.
Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that Utah’s venue statutes prioritize defendant convenience through residency-based rules. When planning multi-defendant litigation involving different legal theories, practitioners should anticipate that general venue provisions will likely govern over specific exceptions. The ruling also demonstrates the importance of carefully analyzing each defendant’s relationship to the claims when determining proper venue.
Case Details
Case Name
Salt Lake Tribune Publishing Co. v. Memmott
Citation
2001 UT 83
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20010635
Date Decided
September 26, 2001
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
When different venue statutes apply to multiple defendants in the same action, the general rule based on defendant’s residence prevails over specific venue provisions for contract performance.
Standard of Review
Not specified
Practice Tip
When suing multiple defendants with different legal relationships to the plaintiff, carefully analyze which venue statutes apply to each defendant and consider how conflicting provisions will be resolved.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.