Fessler v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc.
131 A.3d 44
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- Two consolidated interlocutory appeals from orders transferring venue out of Philadelphia under Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) (forum non conveniens): Fessler (transfer to York County) and Scott (transfer to Chester County).
- Fessler: plaintiff sued Watchtower, CCJW, Spring Grove and Monheim in Philadelphia for sexual abuse that allegedly occurred in York County or Maryland; trial was scheduled in Philadelphia; congregations moved shortly before trial, submitting affidavits from four local church witnesses living ~100+ miles from Philadelphia; plaintiff argued delay, potential backlog in York County, and that some defense witnesses (from New Jersey and New York) would be more burdened by transfer.
- Scott: plaintiff sued Menna and Wawa in Philadelphia for a car accident in Chester County; Wawa (a Philadelphia-serving defendant) later settled and was dismissed; Menna moved to transfer to Chester County asserting convenience of parties, witnesses, and location of accident/medical providers.
- Trial court granted both transfers; plaintiffs appealed as of right under Pa.R.A.P. 311(c).
- Superior Court reversed both transfers, holding defendants did not meet Cheeseman/Bratic burden to show plaintiff’s chosen forum would be oppressive rather than merely inconvenient.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly transferred venue under forum non conveniens | Philadelphia is plaintiff’s proper chosen forum; transfer would be oppressive to plaintiff (delay, York backlog, witness convenience for some witnesses) | Transfer necessary because trial in Philadelphia would be oppressive to defendants/witnesses; alternate forum provides easier access to witnesses and less disruption | Reversed: defendants failed to show oppressiveness; at most mere inconvenience, so transfers were abuse of discretion |
| Whether late filing of transfer motion and timing of affidavits affects weight | Objected that defendant’s delay prevented discovery into oppressiveness and suggested tactical delay to postpone trial | Argued affidavits from witnesses showed genuine hardship regardless of timing | Court gave significant weight to delay and to fact witnesses had previously traveled for depositions, undermining claimed oppressiveness (Fessler) |
| Whether dismissal/settlement of forum-establishing defendant permits transfer (forum-shopping concern) | Inclusion of Wawa had basis; settlement does not prove improper forum shopping | Menna argued plaintiff joined Wawa to manufacture venue in Philadelphia and later dismissed it, justifying transfer | Court held lack of record evidence that plaintiff named Wawa to harass; settlement by Wawa suggests a good-faith claim, so transfer improper (Scott) |
| Role of geographical distance and witness burden in oppressiveness analysis | Plaintiff noted some witnesses (NY/NJ) would be more burdened by transfer; residence is not dispositive | Defendants emphasized many defense witnesses lived 100+ miles from Philadelphia and would face hardship | Court applied Bratic: distance matters, but transferred forum must be oppressive; here evidence showed only inconvenience (Chester ~40 miles; York transfer would unduly delay and burden some witnesses), so no transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc., 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997) (defendant bears burden to show plaintiff’s forum is oppressive or vexatious; mere inconvenience insufficient)
- Bratic v. Rubendall, 99 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014) (clarifies Cheeseman; totality of circumstances; distance and witness burden matter; congestion relevant only insofar as it contributes to oppressiveness)
- Zappala v. James Lewis Group, 982 A.2d 512 (Pa. Super. 2009) (when forum-establishing defendants are dismissed, remaining defendants must show plaintiff engaged in improper forum shopping to justify transfer)
- Lee v. Thrower, 102 A.3d 1018 (Pa. Super. 2014) (affirmed transfer where numerous witnesses 100+ miles away showed trial in Philadelphia would be oppressive)
- Raymond v. Park Terrace Apartments, Inc., 882 A.2d 518 (Pa. Super. 2005) (travel from adjacent suburban counties to Philadelphia is generally mere inconvenience)