Sulkava v. Glaston Finland Oy
54 A.3d 884
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Decedent died in New York while assisting in installing tempering furnaces at a Rochester Insulated Glass facility; Sulkava, as Administratrix, sues multiple Glaston entities and Uniglass in Pennsylvania challenging general personal jurisdiction and venue.
- Two separate preliminary objections were granted by trial court: one against RIG and one against the Glaston appellees; Sulkava timely appealed, later amended per Superior Court guidance.
- Glaston American and Finnish entities are alleged to be related as successors-in-interest to Uniglass; the record shows complex corporate structures and limited discovery on interrelations.
- The trial court’s opinion was brief and did not thoroughly analyze general jurisdiction; the appeal raises whether Pennsylvania has general jurisdiction over RIG and the Glaston entities, and whether venue in Allegheny County is proper.
- This Court remanded after reversing the trial court’s rulings on both sets of preliminary objections and denied the Glaston motion to quash the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RIG is subject to general personal jurisdiction in PA. | Sulkava shows continuous Pennsylvania activity and significant sales. | RIG has minimal PA presence; contacts are insufficient. | Yes; RIG subject to general jurisdiction. |
| Whether the Glaston appellees are subject to general personal jurisdiction in PA. | Glaston Finnish and American entities are part of a single enterprise; successors-in-interest to Uniglass; substantial PA contacts. | Glaston Finnish entities are separate; PA contacts of Glaston American entities are not sufficient for those entities. | Trial court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction; proceeding remanded for further development of interrelations. |
| Whether venue in Allegheny County is proper under PA rules. | Not addressed due to interstitial issue resolution. | Not addressed due to proceeding remand. | Moot/not addressed on appeal; remanded for jurisdictional determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Elec. Credit Corp. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 437 Pa. 463 (1970) (general jurisdiction standards and due regard for forum connections)
- Moyer v. Teledyne Cont’l Motors, Inc., 979 A.2d 336 (Pa. Super. 2009) (minimum contacts and purposefully directed activity)
- Derman v. Wilair Serv’s, Inc., 404 Pa. Super. 136 (Pa. Super. 1991) (continuous and systematic business in forum)
- Haas v. Four Seasons Campground, Inc., 952 A.2d 688 (Pa. Super. 2008) (standard for reviewing preliminary objections and jurisdictional questions)
- Schiavone v. Aveta, 41 A.3d 861 (Pa. Super. 2012) (pleading and jurisdictional burden on moving party)
- Stoloff v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 24 A.3d 366 (Pa. Super. 2011) (reviewing personal jurisdiction on motion to dismiss)
- Slota v. Moorings, Ltd., 494 A.2d 1 (Pa. Super. 1985) (aggregate contacts and continuous and systematic standard)