242 A.3d 323
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- Nine FELA lawsuits were filed in Philadelphia by former railroad employees alleging workplace injuries that occurred outside Pennsylvania; none of the plaintiffs live in Pennsylvania.
- Railroad defendants (Conrail, Penn Central/American Premier, CSX) moved to dismiss eight of the suits (and one separately) under forum non conveniens, arguing witnesses, evidence, and injury sites are outside Pennsylvania.
- Plaintiffs invoked four former Conrail Philadelphia employees (Comstock, Barringer, Thomas, Kovac) as trial witnesses to support venue; the record definitively showed only Comstock resided in Pennsylvania for most cases.
- The trial court initially denied all nine motions, finding defendants offered only ‘‘bare assertions’’ and not sufficient weighty reasons to disturb plaintiffs’ choice of forum.
- After this Court’s decision in Wright, the trial court re-evaluated and concluded defendants had met the weighty-reasons burden in eight cases and asked this Court to remand for dismissal; the trial court asked this Court to affirm denial in Anderson (1748 EDA 2019) because that case was trial-ready.
- This Court vacated the denials and remanded for dismissal in eight appeals, but affirmed the denial in Anderson based on (1) case-specific factual record (trial-readiness and greater showing of local witness relevance) and (2) no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s weighing there.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants met the "weighty reasons" standard to disturb plaintiff's chosen forum under §5322(e) | Plaintiffs argued their forum choice should stand, citing intended Philadelphia witnesses and local judicial expertise with FELA | Defendants argued most witnesses, evidence, and injury sites are out-of-state and dismissal for re-filing elsewhere is appropriate | Court: Eight cases — defendants met burden; vacate denials and remand to dismiss. Anderson — trial court did not abuse discretion in denying dismissal. |
| Whether defendants' sworn affidavits showing out-of-state witnesses and documents are sufficient evidence | Plaintiffs urged affidavits were conclusory and insufficient without more detail | Defendants contended affidavits and supporting records adequately showed witnesses and proof located elsewhere and higher costs/inconvenience | Court: Following Wright, affidavits that identify witness residences and practical burdens are sufficient; trial court erred when it required greater detail. |
| Whether the presence of former Conrail HQ employees as witnesses makes Philadelphia an appropriate forum | Plaintiffs claimed those employees worked in Philadelphia and could testify about corporate policies developed there, like in Robbins | Defendants said only one witness indisputably lives in PA and plaintiffs failed to show relevance of their testimony here | Court: Where plaintiffs failed to show those witnesses’ residency or the relevance of their testimony (unlike Robbins), their invocation did not overcome weighty reasons to transfer. |
| Whether a case being "trial-ready" prevents dismissal for forum non conveniens on appeal | Plaintiffs (in Anderson) argued imminent trial and substantial court resources counseled against dismissal | Defendants argued impending trial readiness does not outweigh private/public inconvenience factors | Court: Trial-readiness and case-specific equities can sustain denial; Anderson was properly distinguished and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright v. Consol. Rail Corp., 215 A.3d 982 (Pa. Super. 2019) (clarified evidentiary burden: sworn affidavits identifying out-of-state witnesses and burdens can suffice to show "weighty reasons")
- Robbins for Estate of Robbins v. Consol. Rail Corp., 212 A.3d 81 (Pa. Super. 2019) (upheld denial where plaintiff showed relevance of Philadelphia-based corporate-policy witnesses)
- Hovatter v. CSX Transp., Inc., 193 A.3d 420 (Pa. Super. 2018) (survey of forum non conveniens factors under Pennsylvania law)
- Bratic v. Rubendall, 99 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2014) (affidavits alleging burdens of distant litigation need not detail specific business disruptions; common-sense evaluation permitted)
- Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 160 A.2d 549 (Pa. 1960) (forum non conveniens public/private interest factors include practical problems making trial easy, expeditious, inexpensive)
- Alford v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 531 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1987) (doctrine looks beyond technical venue to interests of substantial justice)
- Bochetto v. Dimeling, Schreiber & Park, 151 A.3d 1072 (Pa. Super. 2016) (trial court may weigh some factors more heavily than others; not an arithmetic exercise)
- Norman v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 323 A.2d 850 (Pa. Super. 1974) (purpose of forum non conveniens to prevent plaintiffs from imposing undue litigation burdens by choosing inconvenient forums)