Laabs v. Four Star Contracting, Inc.
30 Pa. D. & C.5th 138
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2013Background
- Motor vehicle accident occurred June 2, 2010 in Wayne County, PA involving plaintiff Deborah Laabs and defendants Sorayda Busillo and Four Star Contracting, Inc.
- Busillo allegedly acted within the scope of Four Star Contracting, Inc., which had an address at The Hideout, Lake Ariel, PA.
- Plaintiff sues for injuries and defendants move to transfer venue as improper; the court overrules the objections.
- Lackawanna County conduct by Four Star Contracting, Inc. is alleged through a contract with Lowe’s of Scranton, producing substantial Lackawanna County business.
- Defendants argued Lackawanna County is not a proper venue because the accident occurred in Wayne County and parties do not reside in Lackawanna.
- Court findings focus on whether Four Star Contracting, Inc. regularly conducts business in Lackawanna County and whether the percentage of its business there meets the “regularly conducts business” standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lackawanna County is proper under 2179(a)(2) for a joint action. | Laabs argues regular business in Lackawanna via Lowe’s Scranton contract. | Busillo/Four Star contend regular conduct not shown; business in Lackawanna is incidental. | Venue proper under 2179(a)(2) based on regular conduct. |
| Is plaintiff’s forum choice entitled to deference given lack of residency and operative events there? | Plaintiff's choice remains valid when jurisdiction is satisfied. | Choice deference reduced when plaintiff and events not in forum. | Plaintiff’s choice afforded limited deference but venue still proper. |
| Did Four Star Contracting, Inc. regularly conduct business in Lackawanna County? | Evidence shows substantial Lowe’s Scranton transactions in Lackawanna. | Defendants submitted little to prove regular conduct; otherwise not shown. | Yes, regular conduct; Lackawanna venue appropriate. |
| Does defendant bear burden to show change of venue is necessary? | Burden on defendant to prove change warranted. | Defendant bears burden but presented insufficient evidence. | Defendants failed to meet burden; objections overruled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp., 525 Pa.2d 237 (Pa. 1990) (regularly conducts business standard; quality and quantity factors)
- Zampana-Barry v. Donaghue, 921 A.2d 500 (Pa. 2009) (multi-factor analysis of venue; quantity/quality prongs)
- Canter v. American Honda Motor Corp., 426 Pa.2d 38 (Pa. 1967) (venue proper when defendant's county-specific activity meets test)
- Monaco v. Funes, 417 Pa.135 (Pa. 1965) (venue when relevant county activity constitutes regular business)