PA Counseling Services, Inc. v. Yambor, D.
1287 MDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 17, 2016Background
- PCS appeals a June 29, 2015 order transferring venue from Lebanon County to York County after sustaining Yambor's amended preliminary objections.
- Yambor voluntarily resigned from PCS in 2013 and signed three employment contracts containing a 45-mile non-compete.
- The contracts included a buy-out option to terminate the non-compete for 30% of 12-month gross pay or $4,000, whichever greater.
- Yambor worked primarily in York County, received pay there, and the alleged breach occurred in York County.
- PCS argued venue was proper in Lebanon County because the payment location was silent and the contract did not specify payment situs.
- The trial court held venue improper in Lebanon County and transferred to York County, directing PCS to pay transfer costs; PCS appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is venue proper in Lebanon County where payment situs is silent? | PCS contends Lebanon is proper under Scarlett and Lucas. | Yambor argues York County is proper because breach occurred there and the contract was executed there. | No abuse; venue proper in York County; Lebanon improper. |
| Did the trial court apply the correct venue analysis on preliminary objections? | PCS claims improper venue analysis or forum non conveniens handling. | Yambor asserts proper venue analysis was applied. | Yes; proper venue analysis conducted; second issue rejected. |
| Did the court err in costs under Rule 1006(e) given proper venue was found? | PCS argues costs were improperly imposed for transfer. | York County transfer costs are required by Rule 1006(e). | No error; PCS must pay transfer/removal costs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scarlett v. Mason, 89 A.3d 1290 (Pa. Super. 2014) (presumption favors plaintiff's forum choice does not apply to proper venue)
- Lucas Enterprises, Inc. v. Paul C. Herman Co., Inc., 418 A.2d 720 (Pa. Super. 1980) (payment due location determines proper venue in breach actions)
- Searles v. Estrada, 856 A.2d 85 (Pa. Super. 2004) (trial court’s venue ruling reviewed for reasonableness on the facts)
- Zappala v. Brandolini Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 909 A.2d 1272 (Pa. Super. 2006) (proper venue determined by snapshot of case at initiation; transfer allowed when proper venue exists)