By letter opinion on January 4, 2018, Roanoke Circuit Court denied medical malpractice defendants’ Alternative Motions to Transfer Venue in Rose v. Gulati, et al., No. CL17-977. The defense sought transfer based on all events having occurred in contiguous Salem and no defendant being registered or having a registered agent in Roanoke. Id. at 2.

But Rose declared: “Venue is permissible when at least one defendant has a practical nexus with and conducts substantial business within it”. Id. Further, although litigation in Roanoke was “less convenient” than in Salem, the medical malpractice defendant could not show the requisite “substantial inconvenience,” id. (italics original); and thereby did not rebut the “presumption in favor of retaining Plaintiff’s chosen forum”. Id.

Additionally, Rose ruled that the defense was responsible for the airfare and lodgings of plaintiff’s counsel for deposition of the defendant doctor in California, where he had relocated after the medical malpractice alleged. Id. at 3. An Order memorializing the foregoing is to be entered. Id.