Jones v. Nev. State Bd. of Med. Examiners

• Decision Date: 05 February 2015
• Docket Number: No. 64381.,64381.
• Citation: 342 P.3d 50,131 Nev. Adv. Op. 4
• Parties: Carmen JONES, M.D., Appellant, v. NEVADA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Respondent.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

342 P.3d 50
131 Nev. Adv. Op. 4

Carmen JONES, M.D., Appellant
v.
NEVADA STATE BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, Respondent.

No. 64381.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

Feb. 5, 2015.

342 P.3d 50

Hafter Law and Jacob L. Hafter, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

Bradley O. Van Ry, Reno, for Respondent.

BEFORE HARDESTY, C.J., DOUGLAS and CHERRY, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, we must determine where venue is appropriate for a petition for contempt, arising from a party's failure to comply with an administrative subpoena issued by the Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners, or to otherwise properly participate in a proceeding before the Board. We conclude that NRS 630.355(l )'s language, providing that venue is proper in “the district court of the county in which the proceeding is being conducted,” means that venue lies in the county where the work of the Board takes place, rather than the county where the conduct being investigated occurred. Thus, we affirm the district court's order denying the motion to change venue.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

After a preliminary investigation, respondent Nevada State Board of Medical Examiners filed an administrative complaint against appellant Carmen Jones, M.D., alleging among other things that Dr. Jones aided a third party in the unauthorized practice of medicine. In furtherance of the Board's investigation, it issued a subpoena to Dr. Jones to obtain patient records in accordance with NRS 630.140(l )(b), which authorizes the Board to issue administrative subpoenas to compel the production of documents. When Dr. Jones failed to comply with the subpoena, the Board petitioned the Second Judicial District Court, located in Washoe County, for an order compelling compliance with its administrative subpoena under NRS 630.140 and NRS 630.355.

342 P.3d 51

Relying on a general venue statute, NRS 13.040, which states in part that “the action shall be tried in the county in which the defendants, or any one of them, may reside at the commencement of the action,” Dr. Jones filed a motion to change the venue of the subpoena contempt petition to the Eighth Judicial District Court, which is located in Clark County, arguing that the petition to enforce the subpoena should have been brought in Clark County where she resides and practices medicine. Dr. Jones also argued that if the Legislature intended for Board contempt petitions to be filed in Washoe County, the statute should have been drafted to state that specifically. Dr. Jones further contended that it would be inconvenient for her to participate in the proceedings in Washoe County, and as the Board is a statewide agency and that Board investigators visited her practice in Clark County, it thus would not be a hardship for the Board to pursue its contempt proceeding in Clark County.

In opposition to Dr. Jones's motion to change venue, the Board argued that the subpoena contempt petition against Dr. Jones was properly filed in the Second Judicial District Court because the statute governing venue for contempt petitions brought by the Board, NRS 630.355(1), provides that the Board may seek a contempt order in the “district court of the county in which the proceeding is being conducted.” The Board stated that its administrative proceeding against Dr. Jones is taking place in and arises from its office in Washoe County, that all formal complaints and summary suspensions are filed in its office in Washoe County, and that all hearings on formal complaints and summary suspensions are held at its office in Washoe County. Thus, the Board contended, venue is proper in the Second Judicial District Court under NRS 630.355(1). The Board also argued that the general venue rules contained in NRS Chapter 13 and relied on by Dr. Jones apply to actions to be tried in the district court, and thus, changing the place of trial. Since a Board of Medical Examiners' subpoena contempt petition is not a trial or substantially related district court action, the Board asserted that its petition was therefore not subject to NRS Chapter 13.

The district court denied Dr. Jones's motion for a change of venue, finding that under NRS 630.355(1) venue in the Second Judicial District Court was proper. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Dr. Jones argues that the district court failed to consider NRS Chapter 13, including the doctrine of forum non conveniens, in denying her motion to change venue. And because Dr. Jones and all of the witnesses are located in Clark County, Dr. Jones insists that venue is proper in Clark County.¹ Dr. Jones also...