Rahn, P. v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
254 A.3d 738
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2021Background
- Plaintiff Paul Rahn, a long-time Illinois resident, sued Consolidated Rail under FELA in Philadelphia, alleging workplace exposure that caused lymphoma.
- Rahn’s complaint and discovery initially referenced exposures in Philadelphia, but his deposition (Chicago) revealed his claimed exposures occurred in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio and that his Philadelphia work was a desk job.
- Consolidated Rail moved to dismiss under forum non conveniens, submitting evidence that Rahn, his treating physicians, and most fact witnesses and records are located out-of-state; defendant offered to waive statute-of-limitations and venue/personal-jurisdiction defenses if plaintiff refiled in Illinois.
- Rahn identified four former corporate employees based in Philadelphia he intended to call on company policies; he did not reliably show their current residences or specific relevance.
- The trial court granted dismissal to allow refiling in an appropriate forum; Rahn appealed and also failed to timely serve the trial judge with his Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) statement.
- The Superior Court declined to quash the appeal because the trial court’s 1925(b) order was deficient under the 2019 amendments; on the merits it affirmed dismissal, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding "weighty reasons" to disturb plaintiff’s forum choice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by granting dismissal on the eve of trial | Rahn: dismissal improper because case was trial-ready and plaintiff’s forum choice deserves deference | Consolidated Rail: dismissal proper because key proof, witnesses, and records are out-of-state; plaintiff’s forum has minimal connection | Held: No abuse of discretion — trial readiness outweighed by weighty reasons favoring Illinois |
| Whether trial court erred in finding "weighty reasons" to overcome plaintiff’s forum choice | Rahn: case like Robbins — Pennsylvania witnesses at HQ make forum appropriate | Consolidated Rail: analogous to Wright/Ficarra — majority of evidence and witnesses are out-of-state; viewing of sites and medical records favor Illinois | Held: No error — private and public Gulf Oil factors support dismissal; plaintiff failed to show relevance or residency of corporate witnesses |
| Whether appeal should be dismissed for failure to timely serve Rule 1925(b) statement | Rahn: substantial compliance with the court’s 1925 order | Consolidated Rail: appeal should be quashed for failure to timely serve trial judge | Held: Appeal not quashed — 1925(b) order was deficient under amended rule, so issues not waived |
Key Cases Cited
- Robbins v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 212 A.3d 81 (Pa. Super. 2019) (trial court may deny dismissal where plaintiff identifies Pennsylvania-resident corporate witnesses and links HQ policy to injury)
- Wright v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 215 A.3d 982 (Pa. Super. 2019) (dismissal required where plaintiff worked and proof/witnesses are primarily out-of-state)
- Ficarra v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 242 A.3d 323 (Pa. Super. 2020) (consolidated holdings emphasizing that plaintiff must show relevance and residency of Pennsylvania witnesses; dismissal appropriate where only limited in-state connection)
- Hovatter v. CSX Transp., Inc., 193 A.3d 420 (Pa. Super. 2018) (forum non conveniens standards and factors reaffirmed)
- Berg v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 6 A.3d 1002 (Pa. 2010) (trial court orders inconsistent with Rule 1925 may excuse strict compliance)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (establishes private and public interest factors for forum non conveniens analysis)
- Alford v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 531 A.2d 792 (Pa. Super. 1987) (forum non conveniens doctrine codified and applied in Pennsylvania)