Forum Non Conveniens in Pennsylvania 

In Pennsylvania, the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens is governed by Rule 1006(d)(1) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure which provides as follows:

For the convenience of parties and witnesses the court upon petition of any party may transfer an action to the appropriate court of any other county where the action could originally have been brought.

Pa. R.C.P. 1006(d)(1).  The law governing application of this rule is well settled, and provides that:

the party seeking a change of venue bears a heavy burden in justifying the request and must prove its burden by demonstrating, with detailed information on the record, that the plaintiff’s chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious to the defendant.

Bratic v. Rubendall, 99 A.3d 1, 10 (Pa. 2014) (emphasis in original); see also Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 701 A.2d 156, 162 (Pa. 1997).  A demonstration of “inconvenience” will not suffice.  Bratic, 99 A.3d at 10; Cheeseman, 701 A.2d at 162; see also Walls v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 979 A.2d 847, 851 (Pa. Super. 2009) (“[A] defendant cannot satisfy [its] burden by a showing of mere inconvenience.”).

The “[Pennsylvania Supreme Court] has emphatically stated that the choice of forum by a plaintiff is entitled to weighty consideration.”  Bratic, 99 A.3d at 10.  A defendant cannot meet its burden with conclusory assertions lacking evidentiary support.  Cheeseman, 701 A.2d at 162.  Further, “the mere fact that the site of the precipitating event was outside of plaintiff’s choice of forum is not dispositive.”  Bratic, 99 A.3d at 4. In this regard the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that:

Where a defendant seeks transfer from Philadelphia to its adjacent or immediately surrounding counties, courts generally decline to place much weight on claims that all significant aspects of the case occurred outside the chosen forum.  Where the transfer is to a more distant county, factors such as the burden of travel, time out of the office, disruption to business operations and the greater difficulty involved in obtaining witnesses and sources of proof are more significant due to the greater distances between the forums.

Bratic, 99 A.3d at 6 (internal citations omitted).  Additionally, “[t]he fact that the plaintiff is not a resident of the chosen forum is irrelevant to a forum non conveniens determination.”  Walls, 979 A.2d at 851; Bratic, 99 A.3d at 15.

An order by the Court transferring your case out of your chosen forum can have a drastic impact on your claim.  As such, discussing your case with an experienced attorney is critical.  If you or someone you love has been injured by the negligence of another, contact Attorney Jeffrey Stanton for a free consultation.