A.R. Muhammad v. A.C. Schwotzer
2116 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 6, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Abdur Raheem Muhammad, administrator of his mother’s estate, sued multiple private and Commonwealth defendants alleging Agencies’ negligence led to decedent’s death while she lived at Swissvale Towers in Allegheny County.
- Muhammad filed the action in Philadelphia County pro se on January 6, 2015.
- Commonwealth defendants (Agencies) filed preliminary objections asserting venue in Philadelphia was improper under the Judicial Code. Muhammad did not initially respond.
- The Philadelphia trial court sustained the Agencies’ venue objections and, after reconsideration, ordered the case transferred to Allegheny County or Dauphin County at Muhammad’s choice.
- Muhammad appealed; the Superior Court transferred the matter to the Commonwealth Court, which considered whether venue was properly transferred from Philadelphia.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court, holding venue lay in Allegheny (where the occurrence arose) or Dauphin (where Agencies’ principal offices are located), not Philadelphia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue for claims against Commonwealth parties | Philadelphia is a proper forum; plaintiff’s initial choice deserves deference under forum non conveniens | Venue is controlled by 42 Pa. C.S. §8523 and related rules; Philadelphia is not a proper venue for Commonwealth defendants | Venue improper in Philadelphia; transfer to Allegheny or Dauphin affirmed |
| Applicability of forum non conveniens doctrine | Forum non conveniens requires deference to plaintiff’s forum and Agencies must show defense there is oppressive or vexatious | Doctrine applies only where venue is proper in more than one county; it cannot override statutory venue rules | Forum non conveniens inapplicable because venue never lay in Philadelphia |
| Which county(s) satisfy statutory venue for Commonwealth defendants | (implied) Philadelphia qualifies through local offices | Venue lies where cause of action arose (Allegheny) or where principal office is located (Dauphin); local office rule limited to offices in county where the cause arose | Venue lies in Allegheny or Dauphin, not Philadelphia |
| Effect of multiple defendants with differing venue rules | Plaintiff argued his choice should control despite mixed defendants | Where Commonwealth parties are present, Commonwealth venue rules govern the entire action | Commonwealth party venue rules control; transfer proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Shaffer v. Department of Transportation, 842 A.2d 989 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (Commonwealth-party venue rules govern when Commonwealth defendants are sued)
- Feingold v. Hendrzak, 15 A.3d 937 (Pa. Super. 2011) (standard of review for preliminary objections is legal error; venue transfer reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Walls v. Phoenix Insurance Co., 979 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2009) (forum non conveniens requires showing plaintiff’s chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious to defendant)
- Ribnicky v. Yerex, 701 A.2d 1348 (Pa. 1997) (where multiple defendants have differing venue rules, the venue rule for the Commonwealth defendant controls)