BRATIC v. Rubendall
43 A.3d 497
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Appellants Bratic and Proko sued in Philadelphia County seeking wrongful use of civil proceedings and abuse of process against Rubendall, Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal, Residential Warranty Corporation of Pennsylvania, and Integrity Underwriters, Inc.
- Defendants challenged venue in Philadelphia and moved for a transfer on forum non conveniens grounds.
- Trial court granted the transfer to Dauphin County under Rule 1006(d)(1); Appellants appealed.
- On appeal, a panel affirmed with one dissent; the case was later heard en banc by grant and then a majority decision reversing and remanding.
- The central issue is whether the Philadelphia forum was oppressive or vexatious to defendants under Cheeseman and Rule 1006(d).
- The record shows eight witnesses all located in Dauphin County and most supporting that trial in Philadelphia would create burdens; appellants argue the record lacks particularized proof of oppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Rule 1006(d)(1). | Bratic/Proko contend forum in Philadelphia was oppressive. | RWC/Integrity contend Philadelphia forum was vexatious given witnesses and proof located in Dauphin. | No; but remand for further proceedings required. |
| Whether appellees provided detailed information establishing oppression or vexation. | Appellees provided sufficient detail about witnesses and burdens. | Appellants argue details were insufficient and reliance on inconvenience is inadequate. | Court held appellees failed to meet Cheeseman standard; reversed and remanded. |
| Role of witnesses’ location and burden in transfer decision. | Travel burdens to Philadelphia are substantial for Dauphin witnesses. | Location of witnesses is not dispositive; focus remains on oppression of plaintiff's forum choice. | Reversal; need to reassess under totality of circumstances on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 549 Pa. 200, 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997) (heavy burden to show forum is oppressive; require detailed record)
- Walls v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 979 A.2d 847 (Pa.Super. 2009) (travel burdens or oppression must be shown beyond mere inconvenience)
- Borger v. Murphy, 797 A.2d 309 (Pa.Super. 2002) (evidence of travel burden can establish oppressiveness; distinction from mere inconvenience)
- Cooper v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 761 A.2d 162 (Pa.Super. 2000) (client-based witness hardship considered in context of oppression)
- Wood v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 829 A.2d 707 (Pa.Super. 2003) (detail of proof for 'detailed information' under Cheeseman)