Jackson, J. v. Cops Monitoring, 1944 EDA 2016

Background

Decedent Margaret McClernan died in a 2013 apartment fire in Lansdowne (Delaware County). Her administratrix, Jasmine Jackson, sued multiple owners/operators in Philadelphia County alleging negligent failure to provide/maintain fire detection/prevention equipment.
Ten defendants named; most filed preliminary objections asserting venue in Philadelphia County was improper. Two defendants (Keystone Apartments entities) did not object.
Defendants supporting objections submitted evidence that none were served, resided, owned property, or were registered in Philadelphia and that the incident/property was located outside Philadelphia.
Plaintiff sought to establish venue in Philadelphia solely by arguing two defendants — Novino Technologies, Inc. and COPS Monitoring — "regularly conducted business" in Philadelphia, relying on a deposition, a private investigator’s report, and web search output.
The trial court held a Rule to Show Cause hearing, found plaintiff’s evidence insufficient on the quality/quantity test, sustained preliminary objections, and transferred venue to Delaware County. Plaintiff appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who bears burden on improper-venue preliminary objection?	Gale requires defendants bear burden of proving objections to venue are valid.	Once defendants present "some evidence" venue is improper, burden shifts to plaintiff to prove venue is proper.	Court: burden-shifting applies; defendants need only present some evidence, then plaintiff must prove venue proper.
Whether Novino Technologies "regularly conducted business" in Philadelphia	Novino paid Philadelphia business privilege tax, had web inquiries and limited revenue from Philadelphia; investigative report showed past work in Philly.	Novino is based in Delaware County, <1% revenue from Philadelphia, no explanation of nature of work; past work was dated and not at time suit filed.	Court: evidence insufficient under quality/quantity test; venue improper as to Novino.
Whether COPS Monitoring "regularly conducted business" in Philadelphia	Investigator web results and third-party listings suggested COPS served Philadelphia clients.	COPS is New Jersey-based, does remote monitoring, limited/irregular contacts; web printouts are third-party and ambiguous; plaintiff failed to conduct venue discovery.	Court: evidence was speculative/insufficient on quality and quantity; venue improper as to COPS.
Whether transfer to Delaware County was proper	Transfer was improper because plaintiff met burden to show venue in Philadelphia.	Trial court reasonably found venue improper and transferred case.	Court: affirmed transfer; trial court did not abuse discretion or err as matter of law.

Key Cases Cited

Lugo v. Farmers Pride, Inc., 967 A.2d 963 (Pa. Super. 2009) (standard of review for sustaining preliminary objections and venue transfer)
McMillan v. First Nat. Bank of Berwick, 978 A.2d 370 (Pa. Super. 2009) (trial court’s venue-transfer decision reviewed for reasonableness)
Goodman v. Fonslick, 844 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Super. 2004) (if any proper basis exists for court’s decision, it stands)
Gale v. Mercy Cath. Med. Ctr. Eastwick, Inc., 698 A.3d 647 (Pa. Super. 1997) (discusses limits on venue via incidental acts)
Fritz v. Glen Mills Schools, 840 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Super. 2003) (quality-and-quantity test for "regularly conducts business")
Deyarmin v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 931 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 2007) (improper venue treated as jurisdictional; burden-shifting described)
Wilson v. Levine, 963 A.2d 479 (Pa. Super. 2008) (venue determined by snapshot at time action is initiated)
PECO Energy Co. v. Philadelphia Suburban Water Co., 802 A.2d 666 (Pa. Super. 2002) (corporate right to seek change of venue)
Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp., 579 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 1990) (marketing/advertising/solicitation insufficient to establish venue)
Kubik v. Rte. 252, Inc., 762 A.2d 1119 (Pa. Super. 2000) (website activity insufficient to establish venue)