Wyszynski, R. v. Greenwood Gaming
Wyszynski, R. v. Greenwood Gaming No. 766 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Rita Wyszynski sued Greenwood Gaming (d/b/a Parx Casino) for injuries from a slip-and-fall in a Parx restroom in Bucks County.
- Wyszynski filed the complaint in Philadelphia County.
- Greenwood filed preliminary objections asserting improper venue: its registered office and principal place of business are in Bucks County and it does not "regularly conduct business" in Philadelphia.
- Wyszynski argued Parx regularly conducts business in Philadelphia through extensive advertising and event sponsorships.
- Trial court sustained Greenwood’s preliminary objections and transferred the case to Bucks County; Wyszynski appealed.
- Superior Court reviewed whether advertising and solicitation in Philadelphia sufficed to establish venue under Pa.R.C.P. 2179(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue in Philadelphia is proper because defendant "regularly conducts business" there under Pa.R.C.P. 2179(a) | Wyszynski: Parx’s pervasive advertising and event sponsorship in Philadelphia amount to regular business, so venue is proper. | Greenwood: Its registered office, principal place of business, and all operative activities are in Bucks County; advertising alone is incidental solicitation, not regular business. | Court affirmed transfer to Bucks County: advertising/solicitation, even pervasive, does not establish "regularly conducts business." |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hosp., 579 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 1990) (establishes the quality-and-quantity test for "regularly conducts business"; advertising alone is insufficient)
- Fritz v. Glen Mills Schools, 840 A.2d 1021 (Pa. Super. 2003) (standard of review for venue transfer; plaintiff's choice of forum given weight but not absolute)
- Zampana-Barry v. Donaghue, 921 A.2d 500 (Pa. Super. 2007) (party seeking transfer bears burden to prove change necessary)
- Battuello v. Camelback Ski Corp., 598 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. 1991) (advertising aimed at solicitation does not constitute conducting business for venue)
- Kubik v. Route 252, Inc., 762 A.2d 1119 (Pa. Super. 2000) (contacts limited to solicitation and incidental acts are insufficient for venue)
- Kisak v. Wheeling Park Comm'n, 898 A.2d 1083 (Pa. Super. 2006) (advertising as sole activity in a county does not establish regular business there)
- Wimble v. Parx Casino and Greenwood Gaming & Entertainment, Inc., 40 A.3d 174 (Pa. Super. 2012) (affirmed transfer where activities in Philadelphia were limited to advertising)