In the case of Kennedy v. Crothall Healthcare, Inc., No. 383 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super. Aug. 9, 2024 Collins, J., Stabile, J., and McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Collins, J.) (McLaughlin, J. dissenting), the Superior Court affirmed a trial court's granting of a defendant's Preliminary Objections based upon a lack of jurisdiction and also affirmed the dismissal of remaining claims under the doctrine forum non conveniens.
Relative to the issue of jurisdiction, the court found that the Plaintiff asserted no valid basis for jurisdiction over a manufacturer for injuries sustained in a surgery that was completed in a state other than Pennsylvania.
The court also emphasized that the Defendant was not located in Pennsylvania and the product at issue was never manufactured in the state of Pennsylvania.
The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff did not assert general jurisdiction and, as such, any arguments based upon the Pennsylvania registration of the corporation to do business were considered to be waived. The Plaintiff attempted to request a retroactive application of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. regarding jurisdiction over corporations that register to do business in Pennsylvania. However, the Court found that the Plaintiff had waived this issue of general jurisdiction.
In terms of the Plaintiff's efforts to establish specific jurisdiction over the defendant, the court additionally noted that the fact that the payment for the product at issue was sent to a Pennsylvania lock box was insufficient to support a claim of specific personal jurisdiction against the Defendant. The court emphasized that the lock box had nothing to do with the product liability issue.
The court agreed that the Defendants did not otherwise purposefully direct their activities towards Pennsylvania. Also, the Plaintiff’s claims did not, in any meaningful way, arise out of the use of the lock box. Moreover, the court noted that the lock box belonged to the manufacturer’s bank and not toe the Defendant manufacturer. The court reasoned that if the presence of an independent product distributor is insufficient to support jurisdiction, then the presence of an independent lock box also cannot be sufficient.
The court additionally noted that the Plaintiff did not assert general jurisdiction and, as such, any arguments based upon the Pennsylvania registration of the corporation to do business were considered to be waived. The Plaintiff attempted to request a retroactive application of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co. regarding jurisdiction over corporations that register to do business in Pennsylvania. However, the Court found that the Plaintiff had waived this issue of general jurisdiction.
In terms of the Plaintiff's efforts to establish specific jurisdiction over the defendant, the court additionally noted that the fact that the payment for the product at issue was sent to a Pennsylvania lock box was insufficient to support a claim of specific personal jurisdiction against the Defendant. The court emphasized that the lock box had nothing to do with the product liability issue.
The court agreed that the Defendants did not otherwise purposefully direct their activities towards Pennsylvania. Also, the Plaintiff’s claims did not, in any meaningful way, arise out of the use of the lock box. Moreover, the court noted that the lock box belonged to the manufacturer’s bank and not toe the Defendant manufacturer. The court reasoned that if the presence of an independent product distributor is insufficient to support jurisdiction, then the presence of an independent lock box also cannot be sufficient.
Relative to the issues raised under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court found it was also proper for the trial court to have dismissed the case on these grounds as well. In this matter, it was established that every witness was located out of state as were all of the Defendant’s alleged activities related to the lawsuit. The Superior Court agreed that the Defendant had demonstrated the hardship that justified disturbing the Plaintiff’s choice of forum.
The court in Kennedy additionally ruled that the fact that a corporate Defendant had headquarters in Pennsylvania, in and of itself, was not enough to defeat a motion filed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens seeking a transfer of venue.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Reed Smith law firm in Philadelphia for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.