Grillo, M. v. Penn Central Corp.
32 EDA 2021
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 22, 2022Background
- Appellant Matthew Grillo sued Conrail and Penn Central under FELA alleging workplace exposure caused esophageal and larynx cancer; suit filed in Philadelphia County on Sept. 20, 2019.
- Defendants are Pennsylvania corporations with principal places of business in Philadelphia; Grillo has never lived in Pennsylvania (NJ until 2001, SC since 2001) and worked for defendants in New Jersey.
- Grillo identified 15 potential witnesses (13 fact, 2 expert); four former Conrail employees (Comstock, Thomas, Kovac, Barringer) were said to have relevant knowledge, three of whom were alleged to reside in Pennsylvania (Barringer in Florida).
- Conrail moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens (arguing witnesses, proof, and relevant events are outside Philadelphia); the trial court initially denied the motion but later granted reconsideration and dismissed without prejudice, allowing refiling in another forum.
- Superior Court held the trial court relied in part on improper factors (finding lack of proof that some witnesses lived in Pennsylvania despite investigative evidence, and discounting testimony based on an unrelated jury verdict) and vacated the dismissal, remanding for reconsideration excluding those improper factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion dismissing under forum non conveniens | Grillo: Philadelphia is proper because defendants’ corporate decisions and policies were made at their Philadelphia HQ and affected his safety | Defendants: Key witnesses, proof, and exposure events occurred outside Pennsylvania (esp. New Jersey); another forum (NJ) is more convenient | Court: Dismissal vacated and remanded because trial court considered improper factors; remand to reassess using only proper forum-non-conveniens factors |
| Whether Philadelphia-based corporate acts made PA a compelling forum | Grillo: Corporate policies were created in Philadelphia and drove alleged unsafe conditions | Defendants: Plaintiff’s contacts, treatment, and exposures are out-of-state, so in-state corporate decisions are insufficient to overcome convenience factors | Court: Trial court may consider corporate HQ actions, but must weigh proper private/public forum-non-conveniens factors; remand for correct analysis |
| Whether court improperly favored defendants’ unnamed witnesses over plaintiff’s named PA witnesses | Grillo: Trial court improperly credited hypothetical/unnamed defendant witnesses over his identified PA witnesses | Defendants: Unnamed out-of-state witnesses and subpoena limitations weigh for dismissal | Court: Trial court erred in concluding plaintiffs failed to show some PA witnesses lived in-state and erred by discounting witnesses based on unrelated jury verdict; these were improper considerations requiring remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Ficarra v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, 242 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2020) (consolidated decisions on forum non conveniens in multiple FELA cases)
- Robbins for Estate of Robbins v. Penn Central Corporation, 212 A.3d 81 (Pa. Super. 2019) (denial of dismissal affirmed where forum choice reasonable)
- Rahn v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, 254 A.3d 738 (Pa. Super. 2021) (standard and factors for forum non conveniens review)
- Hovatter v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 193 A.3d 420 (Pa. Super. 2018) (FELA does not change forum non conveniens analysis)
- Hvizdak v. Linn, 190 A.3d 1213 (Pa. Super. 2018) (judicial notice of related proceedings involving same parties permitted)