Philadelphia County Court Grants Defendant's Request To Transfer Med Mal Case to a Different County

In the case of McDonald v. York Hospital, Oct. Term 2023, No. 2872 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 11, 2025 Bright, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s decision to transfer a medical malpractice case from Philadelphia County to York County.

According to the Opinion, the case arose out of an alleged medical malpractice from a heart surgery that took place in York County, Pennsylvania.

After the Plaintiff filed suit in Philadelphia County, the issue of venue eventually came before the trial court.

The Defendants argued that their business activities in Philadelphia County were incidental and not sufficient to establish venue.

The court found that the Defendant’s contacts with Philadelphia County were primarily educational and incidental, thereby not meeting the quality and quantity of contacts required to establish venue under Pa. R.C.P. 2179(a)(2).

The court determined that the Defendants’ core mission was to provide healthcare services in Central Pennsylvania and that any affiliations with any Philadelphia institutions was not essential to this mission.

As such, the court sustained Preliminary Objections filed by the Defendants regarding venue and transferred the case to York County where the cause of action arose and where the Defendants had their principal place of business.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (Feb. 26, 2026).

Superior Court Provides Further Guidance on Quality/Quantity of Contacts Test for Venue Over a Defendant in a Particular County

In the case of Pickering v. Associated Realty Prop. Mngt., Inc., 2446 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Sept. 18, 2025 Lazarus, P.J., Kunselman, J., and King, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.), the appellate court affirmed a trial court Order sustaining Preliminary Objections as to venue and transferring a Philadelphia County case to Centre County, the location of the Plaintiff’s decedent’s death.

The Superior Court noted that whether the Defendants regularly conduct business in a particular county typically presents a mixed question of fact and law, with questions of fact dominating.

Accordingly, the Superior Court noted that Pennsylvania trial courts have wide discretion in determining if venue is proper based upon a Defendant’s business activities.

According to the Opinion, this matter arose out of an incident during which the Plaintiff's decedent fell through an 11-floor access hatch to a garbage shoot. The Plaintiff's decedent sustained fatal injuries.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff's decedent had leased a condominium unit in the building from an individual who lived in Virgina. The condominium unit was located in Centre County, Pennsylvania.

Neither the condominium nor the unit owner had any contact with Philadelphia County.

The court reviewed the contact that the various other Defendants who had manufactured and/or built the access hatches in the building. The court noted that none of those Defendants had any physical presence, employees, or agents located in Philadelphia County. However, the businesses, which were headquartered in California, did conduct business in Philadelphia County.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that trial courts can compare county sales to a company’s national sales figures when determining whether venue is proper in a particular county. The Superior Court rejected a Plaintiff’s argument that only a company’s county-by-county Pennsylvania sales should be reviewed when determining venue.

The appellate court noted that comparing county sales to a company’s national figures sales would paint a more accurate picture of the extent that the company actually conducted business in a particular county in Pennsylvania.

As noted, the court affirmed the trial court’s sustaining of Preliminary Objections on the issue of venue, which resulted in the case being transferred out of Philadelphia and over to Centre County.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: Article – “Courts Can Look To National Sales Figures When Determining Venue, Pa. Superior Court Clarifies,” By Rile Brennan of The Legal Intelligencer (Sept. 19, 2025).

Source of image:  Photo by Ali Rezaei on www.unsplash.com.

The Bus Stops Here: Trial Court Finds Venue Proper in Philadelphia Based on Busing Company's Defendant's Periodic Contacts in the County

Philadelphia Skyline

In the case of Warren v. Heagy, No. 240100294 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 2025 Anders, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s Order overruling the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections that Philadelphia County was an improper venue for the case.

According to the Opinion, this matter involved a motor vehicle accident during which a bus owned by the Defendant bus company collided with the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The Defendants asserted in Preliminary Objections that the Defendant bus company had no physical presence in Philadelphia County, did not derive any revenue from customers located in Philadelphia County, and does not perform acts or maintain contacts in Philadelphia County sufficient to satisfy the quality-quantity tests for venue.

The court overruled the Preliminary Objections after noting that the record revealed that the Defendant bus company is in the business of transporting students to and from school and activities, including transporting students into Philadelphia County for purposes of activity such as field trips. It was noted that over the years, the business company had transported students into Philadelphia County about 10 times during one school year and 10 times during another school year, and 23-30 times on another recent school year.

After reviewing the law regarding the quality-quantity tests for proper venue, the court ruled that the evidence before it demonstrated that the Defendant regularly conducted business in Philadelphia County.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert,” www.Law.com (July 2, 2025).

Philadelphia Trial Court Transfer Venue of Case to Wayne County

In the case of M.O. v. Lavco, LLC, No. 240800817 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 5, 2025 Anders, J.), the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm its Order sustaining the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to venue only and transferring the case to Wayne County.

According to the Opinion, this case arose out of a negligence claim asserted against a summer camp for children located in Wayne County, Pennsylvania. The details of the underlying incident were not provided in the Opinion.

The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections arguing that venue for the action was not proper in Philadelphia County.

After the parties completed discovery under venue issue, the court sustained the Preliminary Objections.

The court noted that, although the Defendant advertised itself to Philadelphia County residents, no Philadelphia County residents had attended the camp between 2020 and 2022, one child had done so in 2023, and two children had done so in 2024.

It was additionally noted that an organization based in Philadelphia County had paid funds to the Defendant to facility the attendance of dozens of campers at the Wayne County camp.

The court sustained the Preliminary Objections to venue and ordered that the case be transferred to Wayne County. The court noted that the Defendant’s registered office and principle place of business were not located in Philadelphia County, but rather, was located in Wayne County. The court otherwise found that the Defendant camp did not regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County.

It was additionally noted that the cause of action arose in Wayne County.

The court otherwise found that the quality and quantity of the Defendant’s contacts with Philadelphia County did not rise to the necessary level to subject the Defendant to venue in Philadelphia County.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 2, 2025).

Superior Court Addresses the Quality-Quantity Test for Proper Venue Over a Corporation in a Given County

In the case of Mendoza-Colon v. Luscomb, Inc., No. 65 MDA 2024 (Pa. Super. April 10, 2025 Bowes, J., Olson, J., and Stabile, J.) (Op. by Olson, J.), the Superior Court ruled that the trial court had erroneously granted a transfer of venue motion rather than first ordering venue-related discovery where the evidence indicated that the Defendants offered business services to the county where the case was initially filed.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was a resident of Lancaster County who sued Defendants who had a principal place of business in Lycoming County. The Plaintiff also asserted that one of the Defendants also conducted business in Luzerne County.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that she was tasked by her employer with driving her delivery truck to one of the Defendants’ locations in Lycoming County. After the Plaintiff arrived and her truck was loaded, one of the improperly stacked boxes fell on the Plaintiff’s hand, causing injuries.

Although the defendant was primarily located in Lycoming County and although the accident happened in Lycoming County, the Plaintiff filed suit in Luzerne County. The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections to venue and requested that the case be transferred from Luzerne County to Lycoming County.

In support of their Preliminary Objections, the Defendants argued that venue was improper in Luzerne County and that the only proper venue was Lycoming County, the location of Gary’s Furniture only place of business. The Defendants noted that no party was a resident of Luzerne County and it was additionally asserted that Gary’s Furniture had never conducted business in Luzerne County.

In response, the Plaintiff asserted that Gary’s Furniture offered free delivery within fifty (50) miles of its retail store, and noted that parts of Luzerne County were within that fifty (50) mile radius.

The trial court ordered a transfer of the venue from Luzerne County to Lycoming County.   

The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated the trial court’s transfer of venue order and remanded the case for further proceedings. 

The appellate court reviewed the law of venue under Pa.R.C.P. 2179 applicable to corporations.  The Superior Court noted that the determination of whether a corporation  "regularly conducts business" in a particular county depends on the "quality" and "quantity" of the business conducted in a given county.

The Superior Court held that offering free delivery to residents to Luzerne County constituted a furtherance of the Defendants’ business activities that satisfied the “quality” prong of the “regularly conducts business” test.

The Superior Court also held that this evidence was sufficient to warrant the granting of the Plaintiff’s request for venue-related discovery to ascertain the extent or “quantity” of the Defendants’ business activities in Luzerne County. As such, the case was remanded.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert, www.Law.com (April 28, 2025).

Improper Venue Preliminary Objections Granted in Favor of Corporate Defendant

In the case of Morehart v. Germania Country Store & Lodge, LLC, No. CV-22-01040 (C.P. Lyc. Jan. 25, 2023 Carlucci, J.), the court granted a Defendant’s request to transfer a lawsuit to the county where the Plaintiff sustained injuries and where the Defendant corporation was headquartered.   

In this matter, the Plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the Defendant for injuries allegedly sustained when the Plaintiff allegedly fell while in one of the Defendant’s stores.   

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in Lycoming County.  The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections asserting that venue should be Potter County, where the injury was sustained and where the Defendant’s corporation was headquartered.   

The court reviewed the issue under Pa. R.C.P. 2179 and 1006(b) and noted that a personal injury action against the corporation or a similar entity may be brought in a county where the corporation regularly conducts business.   

The court further noted that, in determining where a corporation regularly conducts business, the court should consider the nature of the corporation’s actions in the county in terms of both the quantity and quality of those actions.   

Although the Plaintiff in this matter sought to bring a lawsuit in the county where the Defendant routinely traveled to purchase inventory, the court found this contact to be incidental rather than necessary to the Defendant’s purpose of operating a retail store.   

As such, the court granted the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections and order the matter to be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Potter County.   

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source:  “Digest of Recent Opinions.”  Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 28, 2023).

Philadelphia County Court Transfers Venue of Products Liability Case to Bucks County

In the case of Watson v. Baby Trend, Inc., Aug. Term 2021, Case No. 210802189 (C.P. Phila. Co. Dec. 16, 2022 Cohen, J.), the court filed a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s granting of a Defendant corporation’s Preliminary Objections asserting improper venue in Philadelphia County.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff filed this products liability lawsuit alleging that their 11 month old child died while in a car seat manufactured by the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in Philadelphia County. The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint and sought to transfer venue from Philadelphia County to Bucks County.

After allowing for discovery on the issue, the court sustained the Preliminary Objections and issued and Order transferring the case to Bucks County. 

The Plaintiffs filed an appeal, which prompted the trial court to issue this Rule 1925 Opinion. In this Opinion, the court in Watson stated that, while a Plaintiff’s choice of forum is to be given great weight, that choice is not absolute. The court noted that, under Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 2179, personal injury action against the corporation or a similar entity may be brought in a county where that Defendant regularly conducts business.

Under the applicable law, when determining whether venue is proper in this type of case against a corporation, the courts are required to apply a quality/quantity analysis.

After reviewing the record, the court noted that the Defendant’s direct to consumer sales in Philadelphia represented just .0018% of the company’s total 2021 sales and that the company otherwise sold their product through big box retailers such as Target, Wal-Mart, and Amazon.

The court found that the Defendant corporation did not otherwise have any direct connection with Philadelphia County and did not maintain any places of business in the city or even in the state of Pennsylvania. It was additionally noted that the company did not buy any products or material from any Pennsylvania vendors.

According to the trial court, the company’s activities within Philadelphia failed to meet both the quality and quantity prongs of the venue analysis. Consequently, the court found that venue was not proper in its jurisdiction.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Feb. 28, 2023).

Sufficient Quantity and Quality of Contacts Found to Render Philadelphia County as a Proper Venue

In the case of Troseth v. Carson Helicopters Holding Co. Inc., March Term, No. 1222 (C.P. Phila. Co. Aug. 24, 2022 Kennedy, J.), the court ruled that venue was proper over all of the Defendants in this matter because one of the Defendants had sufficient quantity and quality of contacts so as to qualify Philadelphia County as a proper venue. The court additionally held that venue was proper for the remaining Defendant under Pa. R.C.P. 1006(c)(1), which states that, where venue is proper for one (1) Defendant, it is proper for all Defendants.

In this matter, the Plaintiff was injured in a helicopter crash.

The Defendants asserted that Philadelphia County was an improper venue for the suit under Pa. R.C.P. 2179, which governs proper venue for corporate Defendants. The Defendant filed Preliminary Objections. The trial court overruled the Preliminary Objections and the Defendants then moved for an appellate certification of the Orders so that they could immediately appeal the ruling to the extent that it involved a substantial venue issue.

As to the quality of contacts, the court noted that the corporate Defendant’s acts within the county must be those acts directly furthering or essential to their corporate objective. In this regard, the court held that the helicopter manufacturer was in the business of manufacturing, refurbishing, and selling helicopters, and had contracts with manufacturers in northern Philadelphia. The court found that these contacts were of sufficient quality relative to the venue question.

With regard to the quantity test, the court noted that a Defendant’s acts must be sufficiently continuous so as to be considered habitual for venue purposes. The court additionally referenced precedent finding that venue was properly established where just 1-2% of a company’s gross sales were located within the venue jurisdiction.

After reviewing the record before it, the court noted that the helicopter manufacturer had specifically contracted with a Philadelphia manufacturer to produce the interior materials and items for helicopters. The court found that this evidence satisfied the quantity prong of the test.

The court also noted that the Defendant helicopter manufacturer also had other contacts in Philadelphia County and used Philadelphia airports to transport their helicopters.

Given that the court found that venue was proper as to the helicopter corporate Defendant, the court noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 1006, venue was also proper for the other Defendants.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Nov. 22, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Olly Peters on www.unsplash.com.

Proper Venue Against One Defendant Can Be Proper Venue Against All Defendants

In the case of Hagedorn v. Rick’s Backhoe Service, Inc., No. 18-CV-3723 (C.P. Lacka. Co. April 5, 2022 Nealon, J.), the court addressed an improper venue challenge in a case where a Plaintiff’s attorney was appointed the Administrator of a deceased tortfeasor’s estate.

According to the Opinion, an injured Schuylkill County motorcyclist filed a lawsuit against the Lackawanna County personal representative of a deceased truck driver's estate and a Schuylkill County trucking company regarding a motor vehicle accident that occurred in Berks County. 

The accident allegedly arose out of an alleged road rage incident. The Plaintiff alleged that the truck driver pursued the motorcyclist following an angry exchange of strong language and gestures in a construction zone. The truck driver allegedly struck the rear of the Plaintiff’s motorcycle and ejected the motorcyclist from his motorcycle, resulting in fatal injuries.

The Defendant Administrator of the truck driver's estate and trucking company filed Preliminary Objections challenging venue under Pa. R.C.P. 1006(b) and Pa. R.C.P. 2179(a) on the basis that the trucking company did not regularly conduct business in Lackawanna County as required under the quality/quantity test for corporate venue.

The trucking company also filed a demurrer to the Plaintiff’s allegations of willful, wanton, and reckless conduct on the part of the truck driver, as well as the claims for punitive damages, on the basis that those claims lack a sufficient factual basis.

On the venue issue, the court noted that, since a civil action against a deceased tortfeasor must be filed against the personal representative of the decedent’s estate, and given that the Administrator appointed to the truck driver’s estate was properly served at the Administrator’s law office in Lackawanna County, venue is found to be proper as to that personal representative. 

Judge Nealon additionally noted that, since Pa. R.C.P. 1006(c)(1) provides that an action seeking to enforce joint or joint and several liability against multiple defendants may be brought against all Defendants in any county in which venue may be established against any one of the defendants, and given that the motorcyclist had asserted joint and/or joint and several liability against both the Administrator of the tortfeasor's estate and the trucking company, venue is also found to be proper in Lackawanna County with respect to the trucking company regardless of whether or not the trucking company regularly conducted business in Lackawanna County.

As to the allegations of recklessness and the claims for punitive damages, Judge Nealon followed his numerous previous decisions in allowing such claims to be asserted in any case whatsoever regardless of the facts alleged. The court additionally noted that, even if Rule 1019 did happen to obligate the Plaintiff to allege specific facts sufficient to sustain a punitive damages claim at trial (which this Court did not read Rule 1019 as requiring), the allegations regarding the truck driver’s alleged actions, for which the trucking company would allegedly be vicariously liable, were found to satisfy that standard in any event in this case involving alleged road rage conduct.

As such, all of the Preliminary Objections asserted were overruled.

It is noted that, on pages 13 and 15 of the Opinion, Judge Nealon made references to the dispute in Pennsylvania as to the proper assertion of claims of recklessness in Pennsylvania and, in doing so, noted the Pennsylvania Bar Quarterly article entitled “Pleadings for Clarity: Appellate Guidance Needed to Settle the Issue of the Proper Pleading of Recklessness in Personal Injury Matters” written by Daniel E. Cummins.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Photo by Vova Kraslinikov on www.pexels.com.

Court Addresses Proper Venue for a Corporate Defendant

In the case of Schultz v. Plough, No. 10524 (C.P. Lawr. Co. Aug. 5, 2021 Cox, J.), in addressing Preliminary Objections raising the issue of proper venue for the action, the court found that the Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to show that a corporate Defendant regularly conducted business in Lawrence County as per Pa. R.C.P. 2179(a).

This matter arose out of a multi-vehicle accident that also involved damages to utility poles and personal injuries to people involved in the accident.

The Defendants argued that none of the parties resided or maintained a principle place of business within Lawrence County. The Defendant also asserted that the events associated with the claims raised by the Plaintiff occurred in a different county, that being Crawford County.

After reviewing the record before it, the court noted that the Defendant maintained communication liens, utility poles, and other hardware within Lawrence County.

The Plaintiff had also argued that the Defendant was the sole communications provider for parts of Lawrence County and also advertised in Lawrence County.

The court noted that, under Pa. R.C.P. 2179(a), allowed an action against the corporate Defendant to be pled in a county where the corporate Defendant regularly conducted business. The court reviewed the record and found that the corporation performed acts of sufficient quality and quantity to establish venue within Lawrence County.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 5, 2021).

Source of image:  Photo by Caleb Ruiter on Unsplash.com.

Test For Proper Venue for Corporate Defendants Addressed by Court

In the case of Dibble v. Page Transp. Inc., Sept. Term 2020, No. 060 (C.P. Phila. Co. May 19, 2021 New, J.), the court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion recommending that the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed its Order sustaining Preliminary Objections to venue in a motor vehicle accident case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident in New York. The Defendant driver, was a resident of Pennsylvania.  The tractor trailer company Defendants were from New York, one of which had registered business offices in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

The lawsuit was filed in Philadelphia County.

The court noted that, under the test set forth in the case of Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hospital, 579 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 1990), the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that any of the Defendants named in this lawsuit had either the requisite quantity or quality of business contacts in Philadelphia County to be considered to have had “regular” contacts with that jurisdiction.

The court noted that the record confirmed that none of the Defendants had any contacts in Philadelphia County and that the drivers of the company never traveled through Philadelphia rarely carried loads through Pennsylvania.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 5, 2021).

Pennsylvania Superior Court Reverses Trial Court Decision to Transfer Venue of a Products Liability Case Out of Philadelphia County

In the case of Hangey v. Husqvarna Professional Products, Inc., No. 3296 EDA 2017 (Pa. Super. March 8, 2021) (en banc), the court reversed the trial court’s granting of Preliminary Objections on venue issues.

The court found that it was an abuse of discretion to change venue out of Philadelphia based solely on the Defendant conducting only de minimis business in that county.

The Superior Court noted that “regular” conduct of business does not mean “principal,” and a Defendant may perform acts regularly even though such acts are only a small part of its total activities.

On the venue question, the courts must determine whether the evidence, including the scope of the Defendant’s business, established that a Defendant’s contacts with the venue satisfied the quantity prong of the quality/quantity test.

The Pennsylvania Superior Court noted that the number and dollar figure of sales by the Defendant in Philadelphia, and the fact that the Defendant has an authorized dealer in Philadelphia to sell its products, is relevant to the determination of whether its contacts with Philadelphia satisfy the “quantity” prong of the venue analysis. The court additionally stated that he percentage of sales of a corporation in a venue is only one factor to be considered under this analysis.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this Majority Opinion of this decision may click this LINK.  The Dissenting Opinion by Judge Stabile can be viewed HERE


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.

Hershey is the Sweetest Place on Earth For Claims Against Hershey

In the case of Baughman v. Hershey Entertainment and Resort Co., No. 6624-CV-2019 (C.P. Monroe Co. Aug. 3, 2020 Zulick, J.), Judge Arthur L. Zulick of the Monroe County Court of Common Pleas addressed jurisdictional issues in a case involving a slip and fall by the Plaintiff that occurred at Hershey Park Stadium in Dauphin County. 

Before the court were Preliminary Objections filed by Defendant Hershey asserting that venue was not proper in Monroe County under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 

The Plaintiffs asserted that venue was proper in Monroe County given that Hershey regularly conducted business in that county and given that the Plaintiff purchased their ticket in Monroe County to attend an event at the Hershey Park Stadium. The Plaintiffs asserted that the purchase of a ticket constituted a transaction or occurrence under which the cause of action arose. 

Judge Zulick noted that, in determining whether a company regularly conducts business in a particular county, the courts employ a quality/quantity analysis. 

Judge Zulick stated that, although Hershey had some contacts with Monroe County, these contacts were not of sufficient quantity for venue purposes. The court noted that Hershey’s total sales in Monroe County constituted only .24% of its total sales. The court relied upon case law holding that sales of less than 1% were not sufficient to confer venue. 

With respect to the Plaintiff’s argument that Monroe County was proper venue as that was where the party’s contract was made by virtue of the Plaintiff purchasing a ticket to the event at the Hershey Stadium in Monroe County, the court noted that, if this matter had involved a contract dispute that factor may have carried more weight. However, since this was a personal injury action, the focus of that analysis was on the place of the fall and not the purchase of the ticket. 

Based upon the above analysis, the court concluded that venue was not proper in Monroe County. As such, the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections were granted and the case was transferred to Dauphin County where the slip and fall had actually occurred. 

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. 

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Oct. 27, 2020).

Judge Nealon Addresses "Regularly Conducting Business Element" of Improper Venue Challenge

The intersection of quality and quantity in the context of an improper venue challenge was recently addressed by Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas in the case of Espinosa v. J & J Limousine Service, No. 18-CV-0302 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Feb. 26, 2018 Nealon, J.).

In addressing the quantity and quality of contacts by a Defendant in a particular county, the court in Espinosa found that venue in this personal injury matter was improper in Lackawanna County where the Defendant conducted less than 1% of its commercial activities within the county.  As such, Judge Nealon transferred the case to Lehigh County where the accident occurred, which was also the county in which the Plaintiffs resided and where the Defendant regularly conducted business.  

According to the Opinion, the Defendant operated a passenger van which transported the Plaintiff to a park in Lehigh County.   While the parties were in Lehigh County, the door of the passenger van allegedly swung open, which caused one of the Plaintiffs to fall forward and allegedly sustain personal injuries.

The record before the court confirmed that the Defendant's principal place of business was in Lehigh County.  

The Defendants filed a Preliminary Objection asserting improper venue in Lackawanna County and asserted that the only connection with that county was that the Plaintiffs’ attorney’s law office was located in that county.  

In response, the Plaintiff pointed to the Defendant’s website which advertised that its services included multiple locations within Lackawanna County.   However, the court noted that other information presented in the record before the court revealed that the work by the Defendant within Lackawanna County was substantially less than 1% of the Defendant’s annual transportation business. 

The court accepted the Defendant’s arguments that its contacts within Lackawanna County did not occur with sufficient frequencies to satisfy the quantity component of the venue standard.   The court’s review of case law did not reveal any case where a court had found that the venue standard was met where Defendant’s contacts within a county were less than 1% of the total revenues.  

Accordingly, Judge Nealon ruled that the Defendant’s business activities in Lackawanna County were not sufficiently continuous or habitual to quality as to “regularly conducting business” in Lackawanna County.

The Defendant’s Preliminary Objections were sustained and the case was transferred to Lehigh County.

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion by Judge Nealon may click this LINK.

To review other Tort Talk posts on cases applying the Quantity vs. Quality Test for proper venue, click this LINK.

Opinion Addressing the Quantity Part of the Quantity/Quality Test for Proper Venue Against a Business Entity

In the case of Dildine v. Western Alliance Emergency Services, No. 2016-CV-2335 (C.P. Lacka. Co. April 19, 2017 Nealon, J.), the court addressed the "quantity" part of the quantity/quality test for determining whether a corporation regularly conducted business in a particular county for proper venue purposes.

In this case a Bradford County resident filed suit in Lackawanna County against a Bradford County ambulance driver and his Bradford County employer for injuries allegedly arising out of a Bradford County motor vehicle accident.

The Defendants file Preliminary Objections challenging venue.  In response, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant employer regularly conducted business in Lackawanna County such that venue would be proper against all Defendants under the venue rules found at Pa.R.C.P. 1006 and 2179.

Judge Nealon cited to the precedent holding that, to support a finding that a business regularly conducted business in a particular county for venue purposes, the quantity of that entity's activities in the desired county must be "so continuous and sufficient to be general or habitual."

Applying the venue rules to the case before him, Judge Nealon found that the Defendant employer's activities in Lackawanna County were not sufficient to support the filing of the lawsuit in Lackawanna County.

As such, the Defendant's Preliminary Objections were sustained and the case was transferred to Bradford County with the costs of the transfer ordered to be borne by the Plaintiff.

Anyone wishing to review this decision may click this LINK.

The Venue Quality vs. Quantity Test Reviewed by Judge Minora of Lackawanna County

In his recent decision in the case of Oney v. New Milford Market, No. 11- CV-2718 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Oct. 15, 2013, Minora, J.), Judge Carmen D. Minora, of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas granted a Defendant’s Preliminary Objections to venue in a slip and fall case.  

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs sued the owners of a grocery store located in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania.   The lawsuit, however, was filed against the Defendants in Lackawanna County.

The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections on the issue of venue and sought removal of the case to Susquehanna County under allegations that they did not engage in any business or corporate activities in Lackawanna County.   The Defendants further asserted that none of the parties resided in Lackawanna County at the time of the accident or the filing of the Complaint.  

The court noted that this matter involves a joint liability personal injury case with business and individual owner Defendants.   Judge Minora stated that, in such joint liability cases, venue lies in any county in which any Defendants may be sued.   The fact that venue is proper in one county would not negate proper venue in a different county.  

In reviewing the issues presented, after finding that the Defendants’ registered office or principal place of business was not in Lackawanna County, the court applied a “quality-quantity” analysis on the issue of whether or not the Defendants regularly conducted business in Lackawanna County.

Under this test, the “quality” factor required the Plaintiffs to show the performance of acts by the Defendants that directly furthered or were essential to the Defendants’ business objectives and not merely incidental to those objectives.  

Judge Carmen D. Minora
Lackawanna County

In his Opinion, Judge Minora stated that advertising, soliciting business, and purchasing supplies were insufficient contacts.  

Under the “quantity” factor, the court measured what proportion of the Defendants’ continuously and habitual dealings were within Lackawanna County.  

After applying the facts of the case to the mandated test, the court concluded that venue in Lackawanna County was not proper as none of the parties lived in the county, and the Defendants’ sole principal place of business was in Susquehanna County along with its registered business address.   The court additionally found that the Defendants’ business contacts were neither qualitatively nor quantitatively sufficient to establish venue in Lackawanna County.  

As such, the court ultimately concluded that the Defendants have met their burden of proof by pleading sufficient facts that provided an adequate legal basis to sustain their Preliminary Objections and to require the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas to order the removal of the case to Susquehanna County.

Anyone desiring a copy of this Opinion may click this LINK 

For other Tort Talk summaries on other cases applying the quality/quantity venue test, please click HERE and scroll down the list to search for decisions hitting on that topic.

A Primer on Proper Venue

In his recent June 20, 2012 Opinion in the case of Rogers v. Thomas, No. 12-Civil-1464 (C.P. Lacka. Co. June 20, 2012 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas reviewed the law of proper venue and provided a detailed analysis of nearly every issue parties may wish to consider when determining the proper venue for a particular personal injury litigation matter.

By way of background, this personal injury matter arose out of a shooting that occurred in the more conservative (for litigation purposes) Susquehanna County. Various issues were raised as to whether or not the various named Defendants resided in, or conducted business in, Lackawanna County.

When the Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in Lackawanna County, the Defendants filed Preliminary Objections raising, in part, the venue issue.

After a detailed analysis of the venue law found under Pa. R.C.P. 1006 and 2179, the shifting burdens of proof on the various issues presented, and the quality vs. quantity test for proper venue of corporate defendants, Judge Nealon granted the plaintiff additional time to conduct discovery to flesh out the issue of proper venue.

If you are faced with a venue questions, this is a great Opinion to secure a general overview of how the issue should be handled. Anyone desiring a copy of this Rogers v. Thomas Opinion by Judge Nealon may click this LINK.

Recent Venue Decisions Out of Philadelphia County

I have come across two decisions from the past six (6) months the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas allowed personal injury cases to remain venued in Philadelphia over the defendant's objection:

Martine v. YMCA of Brandywine Valley, et al., May Term 2011, No. 0657, Control No. 11092311 (C.P. Phila. Co. Nov. 7, 2011 Glazer, J.).

YMCA of the USA, a national entity in Chicago, Illinois objected to venue in Philadelphia County because the accident occurred in Chester County at a branch YMCA, YMCA of the Brandywine Valley, the Minor Plaintiff resides in Chester County, and it was asserted that the national branch was a completely separate and distinct corporation.  The court noted evidence of contacts by the national branch with the local YMCA branch sufficient to overrule the venu objection.


Kelley v. Gillies, March Term 2011, No. 03264, Control No. 11-082762 (C.P. Phila. Co. Sept. 21, 2011 Manfredi, J.).

Court found that defendant's acts of driving into Philadelphia to deliver products which were sold to Philadelphia customers by way of internet and telephone orders were acts of a quality and quantity sufficient to demonstrate proper venue in Philadelphia County.

Anyone desiring a copy of these venue decisions may contact me at dancummins@comcast.net.

I send thanks to Attorney Ryan F. Curran of the Curran Firm in Media, PA for sharing these decisions with me.

Recent Venue Cases Out of Superior Court

In Kappe v. Lentz, Cantor, Massey, Ltd, No. 614 EDA 2011, 2012 PA Super 48 (Pa. Super. 2/28/2012), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the trial court's transfer of a matter from Philadelphia County to Chester County, even though the incident and the majority of the parties involved were from Chester County.

The Superior Court panel appeared to based their decision, in part, on the fact that the defendant conducted 1.7% of their business in Philadelphia County.

In another recent venue decision out of the Superior Court in the case of Wimble v. Parx Casino, NO. 941 EDA 2011, 2012 PA SUPER 62 (Pa. Super.  3/9/2012, Lazarus, J.), the court addressed a case involving a corporation that which had its principal office located in Bucks County which was also where the underlying incident in this litigation occurred.

A question arose as to whether separate subsidiaries of the Defendant also involved in gambling and located in Philadelphia County constituted that Defendant conducting business within Philadelphia County. The Court cited to the case of Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hospital, 579 A.2d 1282 (Pa. 1990), for the test of whether a corporation “regularly conducts business” in a county for venue purposes.  That test involved the application of the “quality and quantity” analysis of business contacts.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Purcell case outlined the quality/quantity venue test, as follows: “Quality of acts means those directly furthering, or essential to, corporate objects; they do not include incidental acts. Quantity means those acts which are so continuous and sufficient to be general or habitual. The acts of the corporation must be distinguished: those in aid of a main purpose are collateral and incidental, while those necessary to its existence to its existence are direct.”



In Wimble, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s change of venue from Philadelphia to Bucks County on the basis that the other subsidiaries, even if operating in Philadelphia County, were to be considered as separate and distinct corporations for the purpose of establishing proper venue.

The Kappe decision can be viewed here.

Wimble can be viewed here
I send thanks to Attorney Walt McClatchy of McClatchy and Associates out of Philadelphia for bringing these venue cases to my attention.

Judge Nealon Analyzes Quality-Quantity Test for Proper Venue Over Corporate Defendant

In a January 23, 2012 Opinion in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas case of Jacobson v. The Shay Agency, No. 2011-CV-5965 (C.P. Jan. 23, 2012 Nealon, J.), Judge Terrence R. Nealon addressed a challenge to proper venue asserted by the a business defendant in this breach of contract action arising out of an employment agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

The Defendants in this matter contended that venue was improper in Lackawanna County since the individual Defendant resided in Luzerne County, the agency Defendant maintained its registered office in Luzerne County, and since the agency Defendant did not regularly conduct business in Lackawanna County.

The Plaintiff countered that venue was proper in Lackawanna County as the agency Defendant regularly conducted business in Lackawanna County.

In his Opinion, Judge Nealon conducted a detailed review of the Rules of Civil Procedure pertaining to venue and also outlined the “quality-quantity” analysis adopted under Pennsylvania law to determine whether a corporation or a similar entity regularly conducted business in a given county.

The Court noted that the quality component of this test is satisfied if the actions that the business entity performs in the chosen forum further, or are directly related or essential to, its business objectives.

Under this "quality-quantity" analysis, quantity means that the acts are sufficiently continuous so as to be considered habitual for purposes of venue.

Applying the facts pertinent to the venue issue to the applicable law, Judge Nealon determined that the factual representations put forth by the Plaintiff adequately established that venue was indeed proper in Lackawanna County.

Anyone desiring a copy of this Opinion by Judge Nealon in the case of Jacobson v. The Shay Agency may click this link.