In Pennsylvania, the issue of venue often becomes a highly contested issue, especially if the plaintiff’s chosen forum is Philadelphia County.  Pennsylvania law offers defendants two options for transferring venues; first, if the plaintiff’s chosen forum is improper under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, then the defendant can request a transfer to the proper venue.  The second option, however, is when the plaintiff’s chosen venue is proper, but is “inconvenient” for the defendants.  Under the second circumstance, the defendant must file a motion to transfer venue on the basis of forum non conveniens.  The standard by which venue is transferred on forum non conveniens grounds is a high one, which was recently confirmed by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in Finch v. American Premier Underwriters, Inc., et al.

On August 21, 2013, the plaintiff Robert Finch (“plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, asserting various claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act.  Thereafter, on March 20, 2015 the defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to the Court of Common Pleas of Blair County based on forum non conveniens.  The trial court granted the defendants’ motion, transferring the case to Blair County, which resulted in the plaintiff’s appeal to the Superior Court.

On appeal, the Superior Court reiterated Pennsylvania’s law as it relates to forum non conveniens, stating that venue will only be transferred on this basis if the plaintiff’s chosen venue is “vexatious or oppressive.”  At the trial level, the defendants argued that the plaintiff’s chosen venue was both vexatious and oppressive, which required the defendants to show that the venue was more than “merely inconvenient” for them.  To meet their burden, the defendants demonstrated that Blair County, where the incident occurred was the better venue based upon where the plaintiff worked, the plaintiff’s former supervisors and co-workers lived (defense witnesses), and the plaintiff’s treating physicians and medical records were located.  For these reasons, the defendants argued that Philadelphia County was vexatious and oppressive to the defendants and the trial court agreed.

The Superior Court, however, disagreed and reversed the trial court’s decision as being an abuse of discretion.  Specifically, the Superior Court stated that the trial court did not take into consideration that the witnesses that would be called were former employees of the defendants, not current employees; therefore, there was no concern of business interruption.  Second, the Superior Court noted that the record did not address where the non-medical witnesses lived.  Finally, the plaintiff attached five affidavits of former employees of the defendants that the plaintiff planned to call as witnesses at trial.  The affidavits demonstrated that four of the five witnesses lived in the Philadelphia area, which the trial court did not consider in its analysis.  The Superior held that “these oversights and possible mischaracterizations” constituted an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.

Thanks to Erin Connolly for her contribution.

For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at .