Court Opinion

ID: 9894919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-03 16:09:15.612633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:57.717835
License: Public Domain

J-S31002-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 JOSEPH AUSTIN AND ALLISON               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 AUSTIN, H/W                             :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
                   Appellants            :
                                         :
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :   No. 756 EDA 2023
 AMAZON.COM, INC. AND                    :
 AMAZON.COM, INC., T/A, D/B/A            :
 AMAZON FLEX AND DESTINE Z.              :
 MITCHELL

              Appeal from the Order Entered February 7, 2023
    In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at
                            No(s): 210300168

BEFORE: OLSON, J., STABILE, J., and McLAUGHLIN, J.

MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.:                        FILED NOVEMBER 3, 2023

      Appellants, Joseph Austin and Allison Austin, husband and wife, appeal

from the February 7, 2023 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County, granting a motion for transfer of venue for forum non

conveniens filed by Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com, Inc., t/a, d/b/a

Amazon Flex (collectively “Amazon”). We reverse the order and remand the

case for further proceedings.

      Pertinent to our disposition herein, the record reveals that on March 2,

2021, Appellants filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County against, inter alia, Amazon and Destine Z. Mitchell

(“Mitchell”). The complaint alleged causes of action for negligence, negligent

hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision, and loss of consortium.
J-S31002-23

Complaint, 3/21/21.1 According to the allegations contained in the complaint,

Appellants’ causes of action arose from a vehicle accident that occurred on

September 20, 2019. Id. at ¶¶12-14. Specifically, Appellants alleged that

Mitchell, while operating a vehicle within the course and scope of her

employment with Amazon, struck a vehicle operated by Joseph Austin. Id.

The accident was alleged to have occurred at the intersection of West Valley

Forge Road, Geerdes Boulevard, and Allendale Road, which are roadways

located in King of Prussia, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Id. at 12.

       On November 14, 2022, Amazon moved to transfer venue to the Court

of Common Pleas of Montgomery County pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of

Civil Procedure 1006(d)(1).2            Motion to Transfer, 11/14/22, at ¶47.

Commonly referred to as a venue transfer on grounds of forum non

conveniens, Rule 1006(d)(1) permits the trial court, upon petition of any

party, to transfer an action to the appropriate court of any other county where

the action could originally have been brought, when the transfer best suits the

convenience of the parties and witnesses in the litigation. See Pa.R.Civ.P.

____________________________________________

1 An amended complaint setting forth the same causes of actions and almost

identical allegations was filed on April 5, 2021.

2 Although the “wherefore” paragraph of the motion to transfer requested that

the matter be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, a
review of the motion reveals that Amazon requested the matter be transferred
to the Court of Common Pleas of Montogomery County. See Motion to
Transfer, 11/14/21, at ¶47 (stating, “transferring this matter to the Court of
Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania pursuant to [Rule]
1006(d)(1) would be a particularly appropriate remedy”).

                                           -2-
J-S31002-23

1006(d)(1).     That same day, Amazon also filed a memorandum of law in

support of its motion to transfer.             On February 6, 2023, Amazon filed a

supplemental brief in support of its motion to transfer, and that same day,

Appellants filed a response in opposition to the motion to transfer.           On

February 7, 2023, the trial court granted Amazon’s motion to transfer. This

appeal followed.3

       Appellants raise the following issues for our review:4

       [1.]   Whether the trial court abused its discretion, misapplied the
              law, [or] acted in a manifestly unreasonable manner when
____________________________________________

3 Both Appellants and the trial court complied with Pennsylvania Rule of
Appellate Procedure 1925.

4 Appellants’ brief fails to comport with the requirements of Pennsylvania Rule

of Appellate Procedure 2111(a). In particular, Appellants’ brief fails to contain,
inter alia, a statement of jurisdiction, a reproduction of the order in question,
a statement of the scope and standard of review, a statement of the questions
presented, a statement of the case, and a summary of the argument. See
generally Appellants’ Brief, 7/3/23; see also Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a). We remind
counsel of the importance of adhering to the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate
Procedure as it is well-established that this Court is not obligated to consider
an appellant’s argument when the appellate brief does not, inter alia, set forth
a statement of questions presented. See Commonwealth v. Maris, 629
A.2d 1014, 1016 (Pa. Super. 1993).

Nonetheless, Appellants filed a Rule 1925(b) statement setting forth
challenges to the trial court’s order granting the motion to transfer, and the
trial court was able to discern, for purpose of its Rule 1925(a) opinion,
Appellants’ challenges. See Appellants’ Rule 1925(b) Statement, 4/10/23;
see also Trial Court Opinion, 5/23/23. Therefore, we decline to dismiss
Appellants’ appeal on the ground that their brief failed to adhere to Rule
2111(a) in the case sub judice.

The three issues set forth herein are the issues raised in Appellants’ Rule
1925(b) statement.

                                           -3-
J-S31002-23

              it granted [Amazon’s] motion to transfer venue to
              Montgomery County based on forum non conveniens where
              [Amazon] merely mention[s] inconvenience but did not
              request relief or present evidence to support [the] transfer
              based on forum non conveniens[?]

      [2.]    Whether the trial court abused its discretion, misapplied the
              law, [or] acted in a manifestly unreasonable manner when
              it granted [Amazon’s] motion to transfer venue to
              Montgomery County based on forum non conveniens where
              [Amazon was] given the opportunity by the [trial] court to
              present evidence yet failed to do so such that [it] failed to
              present any evidence to establish that [Appellants’] chosen
              forum is either oppressive or vexatious[?]

      [3.]    Whether the trial court abused its discretion, misapplied the
              law, [or] acted in a manifestly unreasonable manner when
              it granted [Amazon’s] motion to transfer venue to
              Montgomery County based on forum non conveniens, when
              [Amazon was] estopped from asserting forum non
              [conveniens], based on the doctrine[s] of laches [and]
              unclean hands after opposing an almost identical motion to
              transfer this matter to Montgomery County and consolidate
              it with a separate matter[?]

Appellants’ Rule 1925(b) Statement, 4/10/23 (extraneous capitalization

omitted).

      In toto, Appellants’ issues challenge the trial court’s order granting

Amazon’s motion to transfer venue based upon the doctrine of forum non

conveniens.

      A trial court is vested with considerable discretion in ruling on a motion

to transfer venue pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006, and

as such, this Court reviews a trial court’s ruling for an abuse of that discretion.

Bratic v. Rubendall, 99 A.3d 1, 7 (Pa. 2014).

      In this regard, the trial court's ruling must be reasonable in light
      of the peculiar facts. If there exists any proper basis for the trial

                                       -4-
J-S31002-23

      court's decision to transfer venue, the decision must stand. An
      abuse of discretion is not merely an error of judgment, but occurs
      only where the law is overridden or misapplied, or the judgment
      exercised is manifestly unreasonable, or the result of partiality,
      prejudice, bias[,] or ill[-]will, as shown by the evidence of the
      record.

Id. (citation and original brackets omitted).

      Rule 1006 states, in pertinent part, as follows:

                  Rule 1006. Venue. Change of Venue

      (a) General Rule. Except as otherwise provided by subdivisions
      (b) and (c) of this rule, an action against an individual may be
      brought in and only in a county where

      (1) the individual may be served;

      (2) the cause of action arose;

      (3) a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause
      of action arose;

      (4) venue is authorized by law; or

      (5) the property or a part of the property, which is the subject
      matter of the action, is located provided that equitable relief is
      sought with respect to the property.

      (b) Venue Designated by Rule. Actions against the following
      defendants, except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c), may
      be brought in and only in the counties designated by the following
      rules: political subdivisions, Rule 2103; partnerships, Rule 2130;
      unincorporated associations, Rule 2156; corporations and similar
      entities, Rule 2179.

      (c) Joint and Several Liability Actions. An action to enforce a
      joint or joint and several liability against two or more defendants,
      except actions in which the Commonwealth is a party defendant,
      may be brought against all defendants in any county in which the
      venue may be laid against any one of the defendants under the
      general rules of subdivisions (a) or (b).

      (d) Transfer of Venue.

                                       -5-
J-S31002-23

      (1) For the convenience of parties and witnesses, the court upon
      petition of any party may transfer an action to the appropriate
      court of any other county where the action could originally have
      been brought.

Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006(a), (b), (c), and (d)(1). Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure

2179 states, in pertinent part, that

       Rule 2179. Venue in an Action Against a Corporation or
                           Similar Entity

      (a) General Rule. Except as otherwise provided by an Act of
      Assembly or by subdivision (b) of this rule, a personal action
      against a corporation or similar entity may be brought in and only
      in a county where

      (1) the registered office or principal place of business of the
      corporation or similar entity is located;

      (2) the corporation or similar entity regularly conducts business;

      (3) the cause of action arose;

      (4) a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause
      of action arose; or

      (5) the property or a part of the property, which is the subject
      matter of the action, is located provided that equitable relief is
      sought with respect to the property.

Pa.R.Civ.P. 2179(a).

      Plaintiffs have long been provided with the initial choice of the
      court in which to bring an action, if that court has jurisdiction.
      This practice derives from the notion of convenience to the
      plaintiff, not from the desire to pursue verdicts in counties
      perceived to be more plaintiff-friendly. While a plaintiff need not
      provide reasons for selecting one venue over another, the doctrine
      of forum non conveniens is a necessary counterbalance to
      [ensure] fairness and practicality.

Bratic, 99 A.3d at 6 (citations and original brackets omitted).            “[T]he

plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to weighty consideration[, and] the party

                                       -6-
J-S31002-23

seeking a change of venue bears a heavy burden in justifying the request[.]”

Id. at 6-7 (citations, original brackets, and ellipsis omitted) (stating, “it has

been consistently held that this burden includes the demonstration on the

record of the claimed hardships”). “[A] petition to transfer venue should be

granted only if the defendant demonstrates, with detailed information on the

record, that the plaintiff's chosen forum is oppressive or vexatious to the

defendant.”5 Id. at 7, relying on Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc.,

701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997).

       “[I]mportant considerations when measuring oppressiveness are:

relative ease of access to witnesses or other sources of proof; availability of

compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and cost of obtaining willing,

witnesses; costs associated with witnesses’ attendance; and ability to [] view

[the] premises involved in [the] dispute[.]” Ritchey v. Rutter’s Inc., 286

A.3d 248, 255 (Pa. Super. 2022), relying on Wood v. E.I. du Pont de

Nemours and Co., 829 A.2d 707, 712 (Pa. Super. 2003), appeal denied, 860

A.2d 124 (Pa. 2004); see also Raymond v. Park Terrace Apartments,

Inc., 882 A.2d 518, 520 (Pa. Super. 2005) (stating that, a defendant may

demonstrate oppressiveness by establishing on the record that a “trial in

____________________________________________

5 Although Amazon may satisfy its burden by demonstrating on the record
that Appellants’ choice of venue was oppressive or vexatious, none of the
allegations contained in Amazon’s motion to transfer, or its appellate brief,
allege that Appellants elected to file their complaint in Philadelphia County to
harass Amazon. Therefore, we limit our review to whether Amazon sufficiently
demonstrated on the record that Appellants’ choice of venue was oppressive.

                                           -7-
J-S31002-23

another county would provide easier access to witnesses or other sources of

proof, or to the ability to conduct a view of premises involved in the dispute”),

appeal denied, 887 A.2d 1241 (Pa. 2005).         “Mere inconvenience remains

insufficient, but there is no burden [on a defendant] to show near-draconian

consequences.”     Bratic, 99 A.3d at 10.      In analyzing the sufficiency of

evidence demonstrated on the record to support a finding of oppressiveness,

a trial court must employ a totality of the circumstances analysis. Ritchey,

286 A.3d at 257.

      In its motion to transfer, Amazon asserted that “[t]rial in Montgomery

County will make it more convenient for all parties and potential witnesses to

attend without excessive traveling and traffic issues.” Amazon’s Motion to

Transfer, 11/14/22, at ¶40; see also id. at ¶37 (setting forth “all relevant

factors” that weigh in favor or transfer). Attached to its memorandum of law

in support of its motion to transfer, Amazon included exhibits demonstrating,

inter alia, a photograph depicting the front of a residence located in

Montogomery County that was posted with Appellants’ notice of intent to take

a default judgment against Mitchell, the driving distance between the accident

site and the courthouse in Montgomery County, the driving distance between

the accident site and the courthouse in Philadelphia County, the driving

distance between Appellants’ residence and the courthouse in Montgomery

County, and the driving distance between Appellants' residence and the

courthouse in Philadelphia County. See id. at ¶¶9, 17-20; see also Amazon’s

Memorandum of Law, 11/14/22, at Exhibits B-F.              In its supplemental

                                      -8-
J-S31002-23

memorandum of law, Amazon asserted that a witness to the accident, if called

to testify at trial, would state that “Mitchell was operating a sedan (not an

Amazon delivery vehicle)[.]” Amazon’s Supplemental Memorandum of Law,

2/6/23, at 3.   Amazon attached a copy of an affidavit from the potential

witness to its supplemental memorandum, in which the potential witness

averred that “[b]ecause I live in Bucks County[, Pennsylvania,] and work in

Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Montgomery County is a more accessible

and convenient jurisdiction for me to attend and testify at trial than

Philadelphia [County,] which would pose more of a burden.” Id. at Exhibit A

¶5.

      Although the trial court granted Amazon’s motion to transfer, the trial

court, in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, declared that its decision to grant the

motion to transfer was in error. Trial Court Opinion, 5/23/23, at 3 (requesting

that the February 7, 2023 order be reversed and the case remanded). The

trial court explained,

      [Amazon] argue[d] that: (i) the alleged incident occurred in
      Montgomery County, (ii) [Appellants] reside in Montgomery
      County, (iii) multiple agencies and personnel responded to the
      accident scene, (iv) a wide array of [Joseph Austin’s] medical
      treatment occurred in Montgomery County, and (v) [Appellants]
      have filed separate but related suits in the Court of Common Pleas
      of Montgomery County. Despite these arguments, [Amazon]
      failed to meet [its] heavy burden in demonstrating that
      Philadelphia County represents an oppressive or vexatious venue,
      when compared with Montgomery County, which borders
      Philadelphia County.

                                     -9-
J-S31002-23

Id. (citations omitted). The trial court stated that, upon further reflection, its

order granting Amazon’s motion to transfer was in error because “Appellants’

choice of forum must be given great weight[,] and [Amazon’s] arguments fail

to overcome the weight afforded to Appellants’ choice forum.” Id.

       Upon review, we concur with the views expressed by the trial court in

its Rule 1925(a) opinion, and the record supports, that Amazon failed to

demonstrate that Appellants’ decision to bring their causes of action against

Amazon in Philadelphia County rose to the level of oppressiveness necessary

to overcome Appellants’ choice of venue.6          While Amazon established, for

example, that the accident site was closer to the courthouse in Montgomery

county than the courthouse in Philadelphia county (see Amazon’s Motion to

Transfer, 11/14/22, at ¶17-18, Exhibits C and D), this evidence merely

demonstrates a greater traveling distance to the accident site from

Philadelphia County and, therefore, a greater inconvenience. Furthermore,

the affidavit submitted by the potential witness sets forth that Montgomery

County is “more accessible” and “convenient” for the witness.               Mere

inconvenience, however, is not sufficient to give rise to an oppressive forum.

____________________________________________

6 Although Amazon asserts reasons why venue in Philadelphia County is
oppressive (see Amazon’s Brief at 12-13), Amazon does not challenge venue
in Philadelphia County on the basis that it violates Rule 2179. See id. at
10-15. Moreover, the record demonstrates that a manager for Amazon was
served with a copy of Appellants’ complaint at an address located in
Philadelphia County. Affidavit of Service, 3/16/21.

                                          - 10 -
J-S31002-23

Bratic, 99 A.3d at 10. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order granting

Amazon’s motion to transfer and remand the case for further proceedings.

     Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.

Date: 11/03/2023

                                   - 11 -