Singh, M. v. Dhan Hospitality
283 A.3d 374
Pa. Super. Ct.2022Background
- Plaintiff Manjit Singh, administrator of Harpreet Singh’s estate, sued after the decedent was allegedly assaulted and asphyxiated in the parking lot of a Red Roof Inn located in Lancaster County. Defendants included the alleged assailants and entities tied to Red Roof Inns (Dhan Hospitality, RRI, RRI West Management, Red Roof Franchising (RRF)).
- Singh filed the complaint in Philadelphia County; several defendants (including Brubaker) filed preliminary objections asserting improper venue and sought transfer to Lancaster County.
- The trial court ordered limited discovery on venue. RRF’s VP testified RRF has no franchises in Philadelphia but franchises a location in Essington (Delaware County) and collects franchise fees from the Lancaster property owned/operated by Dhan Hospitality.
- The trial court sustained Brubaker’s preliminary objections and transferred the case to Lancaster County; it denied as moot other venue objections. Singh conceded Philadelphia venue was improper but argued the case should be in Delaware County because RRF “regularly conducts business” there, invoking Pa.R.Civ.P. 2179(a)(2) and Rule 1006(c)(1).
- The trial court found Lancaster County proper (site of the incident and of Dhan Hospitality’s business) and held it need not adopt Singh’s second-choice forum; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred by transferring to Lancaster when RRF “regularly conducts business” in Delaware County under Pa.R.Civ.P. 2179(a)(2). | RRF has a franchise in Essington (Delaware County) and thus “regularly conducts business,” so venue in Delaware is proper. | Lancaster is the situs of the incident and Dhan Hospitality’s business; Philadelphia venue is improper; transfer to Lancaster is proper. | Transfer affirmed; Lancaster is proper and plaintiff conceded Philadelphia was improper; court need not select plaintiff’s second choice. |
| Whether venue in Delaware County (as to one corporate defendant) would allow venue as to all defendants under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006(c)(1). | If one corporate defendant has proper venue in Delaware, Rule 1006(c)(1) allows venue there as to all defendants. | Even if RRF has a Delaware franchise, Lancaster is plainly proper; transfer to Lancaster was reasonable. | Court upheld transfer to Lancaster; Rule 1006(c)(1) did not require transfer to Delaware in these circumstances. |
| Whether plaintiff’s choice of forum (including a second choice) presumptively controls venue analysis under Rule 2179(a)(2). | Plaintiff’s forum preferences (first or second choice) should be given substantial weight. | A plaintiff’s choice does not determine whether venue is proper; venue is a binary legal question. | Court held plaintiff’s forum choice irrelevant to the legal question of venue propriety; trial court properly transferred to any proper county. |
| Whether the court improperly relied on arguments by Red Roof defendants whose objections were denied as moot. | Trial court relied on arguments of defendants whose preliminary objections were denied as moot, creating inconsistency. | Issue was waived and Singh had raised Rule 2179 below; the court properly considered evidence. | Issue waived and, in any event, no reversible error found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp., 579 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 1990) (articulates the “quality and quantity” test for whether a corporation “regularly conducts business” for venue purposes)
- Zappala v. Brandolini Prop. Mgmt., Inc., 909 A.2d 1272 (Pa. 2006) (Rule 1006(c)(1) permits suing multiple corporate defendants in any county where venue lies as to one defendant)
- Kring v. Univ. of Pittsburgh, 829 A.2d 673 (Pa. Super. 2003) (plaintiff’s forum choice does not apply to the legal question whether venue is proper)
- Scarlett v. Mason, 89 A.3d 1290 (Pa. Super. 2014) (same: venue propriety is binary and not governed by deference to plaintiff’s choice)
- Jackson v. Laidlaw Transit, Inc., 822 A.2d 56 (Pa. Super. 2003) (plaintiff’s choice of forum is given weight but is not absolute)
- Schultz v. MMI Products, Inc., 30 A.3d 1224 (Pa. Super. 2011) (if any proper basis exists for transfer, the trial court’s decision will be upheld)