In the its Non-precedential decision in the case of Ojo v. Hanover Foods Corp., No. 2037 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 25, 2025 Panella, J., Nichols, J., and Ford Elliot, P.J.E.) (Op. by Panella, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court’s sustaining of Preliminary Objections asserting that venue was not proper in Philadelphia County.
The court in this matter reviewed the record and stated that there was no evidence that the Defendants in this matter regularly conducted business in Philadelphia. The court noted that the Defendant did not have any products in Philadelphia or any physical presence in that County.
The court noted that the mere shipment of raw materials in sealed containers does not constitute conducting business in this context.
The court also ruled that the purchasing of products from Philadelphia suppliers did not constitute doing business in Philadelphia in this context.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Non-precedential decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
The court noted that the mere shipment of raw materials in sealed containers does not constitute conducting business in this context.
The court also ruled that the purchasing of products from Philadelphia suppliers did not constitute doing business in Philadelphia in this context.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Non-precedential decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.