Bratic, A. v. Rubendall, C., Aplt.
626 Pa. 550
| Pa. | 2014Background
- Appellants (corporate warranty companies and their counsel) were defendants in an earlier Dauphin County suit that was dismissed; appellees then sued appellants in Philadelphia County for wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process based on that prior suit.
- Appellants petitioned under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) to transfer the Philadelphia action to Dauphin County on forum non conveniens grounds, submitting affidavits from seven witnesses (each living >100 miles from Philadelphia) asserting travel, lodging, lost work, and financial hardship.
- The trial court granted the transfer, citing (among other things) the location of the precipitating events in Dauphin, appellants’ ties to Dauphin, and the witnesses’ distance from Philadelphia.
- A divided Superior Court panel initially affirmed; on reargument en banc the Superior Court reversed, finding the affidavits insufficiently particular and some trial-court factors irrelevant to a Cheeseman analysis.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review to clarify the Cheeseman standard and whether the trial court abused its discretion; it affirmed the trial court’s transfer order, holding the affidavits and totality of the record supported a finding that Philadelphia would be oppressive, not merely inconvenient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) was warranted (forum non conveniens) | Bratic (plaintiff) argued Philadelphia is proper and transfer unwarranted; plaintiff’s choice merits deference | Appellants argued trial in Philadelphia would be oppressive/vexatious because witnesses and evidence are in Dauphin and travel would cause hardship | Transfer affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; record supported oppressiveness beyond mere inconvenience |
| Sufficiency of affidavits describing witness hardship | Bratic contended affidavits were conclusory and failed to show specific business disruption or unreimbursed costs | Appellants maintained affidavits showing distance, travel costs, lost workdays suffice to show oppression | Held: affidavits provided a sufficient factual basis; Cheeseman does not mandate a particular form or extreme detail |
| Relevance of plaintiff/counsel residence and prior filing county | Bratic argued residence/prior suit county are peripheral and cannot justify transfer | Appellants pointed to prior suit and local witness concentration as relevant to access to proof | Held: residency/prior filing are not alone dispositive but may be considered among factors when they bear on oppressiveness |
| Role of court-congestion and public-interest factors | Bratic warned public-interest factors (congestion, community burden) are not controlling post-Cheeseman | Appellants noted court efficiency and access to local witnesses/evidence implicate those concerns | Held: court congestion/public-interest factors are not dispositive; they may be considered only insofar as they affect whether the chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997) (establishes defendant’s burden to show plaintiff’s forum is oppressive or vexatious; limits public-interest factors)
- Zappala v. Brandolini Property Management, Inc., 909 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2006) (discusses trial-court discretion and abuse-of-discretion standard for venue transfers)
- Walls v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 979 A.2d 847 (Pa. Super. 2009) (examines effect of witness compensation and professional witness status on transfer analysis)
- Wood v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 829 A.2d 707 (Pa. Super. 2003) (recognizes transfer appropriate when witnesses must travel long distances; trial court has discretion to accept various forms of proof)