Originally Posted by MisterV View Post
Originally Posted by Mission146 View Post
Maybe the court lacking subject matter jurisdiction would be a Motion to Dismiss, as opposed to Summary Judgment...I'm not sure which motion that would be.
I'd file a motion to dismiss in the scenario you posited.

Lack of jurisdiction means the chosen court lacks the legal power and ability to hear the case and render an enforceable judgment.
I did know that...that's why I figured I said the wrong motion. Motion for Summary Judgment would be when looking at the case in the light most favorable to the non-moving party there is no tort for which relief can be granted, or some such. If the venue were improper, then it shouldn't even get that far.

One thing that I know is that there is such a thing as a Motion to Change Venue, but I'm not sure what function that serves, if any, in a civil matter. If the civil matter is dismissed for want of jurisdiction, that would necessarily be a dismissal with prejudice, but would filing in the proper jurisdiction be precluded on the grounds of res judicata for a case that wasn't decided on the merits to begin with?

So, if you were the other party...would you move to change venue or just accept the dismissal and file a new complaint in a court with subject matter jurisdiction?