A.D. Brown v. Zygmont Pines and Tom Wolf
A.D. Brown v. Zygmont Pines and Tom Wolf - 1898 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- Alton D. Brown, an inmate at SCI‑Greene, sued 55 defendants (including Gov. Tom Wolf and Zygmont Pines) in Philadelphia County alleging multiple claims arising from events at SCI‑Greene.
- Only Gov. Wolf and Administrator Pines were properly served. Pines filed preliminary objections and, after Brown did not respond, all claims against Pines were dismissed with prejudice.
- Gov. Wolf later filed preliminary objections arguing Philadelphia County was an improper venue and seeking transfer to Greene County.
- The Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas sustained Wolf’s preliminary objections and transferred the case to Greene County.
- Brown appealed, arguing venue should remain in Philadelphia because Pines was the lead defendant (or alternatively, that venue should be Dauphin County where the Governor’s principal office is located).
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the transfer, finding venue proper in Greene (where the cause arose and most defendants and evidence are located) or alternatively in Dauphin (Governor’s principal office), and that Greene was the appropriate forum in the interests of convenience and access to proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue after Pines’ dismissal | Brown: Philadelphia is proper because Pines (lead defendant) has principal office there and claims arose there | Wolf: Venue is improper in Philadelphia; events occurred at SCI‑Greene so venue lies in Greene (or Dauphin for Governor) | Court: Philadelphia improper; Pines’ claims were dismissed and his principal office is in Dauphin, not Philadelphia; Greene or Dauphin proper; transfer to Greene affirmed |
| Whether Commonwealth venue rule controls when multiple defendants | Brown: Implicitly argued local rules should favor Philadelphia due to Pines | Wolf: Section 8523 governs venue for Commonwealth parties and controls | Court: Section 8523 applies when Commonwealth parties are named; it governs venue selection |
| Whether venue in Dauphin (Governor’s principal office) should have been chosen instead of Greene | Brown: Argued Dauphin is proper because Governor’s principal office is there | Wolf: Asked specifically for transfer to Greene where events occurred and most defendants/evidence are located | Court: Dauphin would be permissible solely because of Governor’s office, but transfer to Greene is appropriate and consistent with convenience and evidence considerations |
| Use of forum non conveniens | Brown: Trial court erred by relying on forum non conveniens (argues) | Wolf: Did not raise forum non conveniens; sought transfer for improper venue | Court: Forum non conveniens not at issue; court properly relied on improper venue under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(1) to transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Department of Transportation, 842 A.2d 989 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (trial court’s venue transfer reviewed for abuse of discretion; venue decision upheld if reasonable)
- Ribnicky v. Yerex, 701 A.2d 1348 (Pa. 1997) (when multiple defendants have different venue rules, venue rules for Commonwealth parties control)