HARRISBURG – A three-judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld the transfer of a personal injury action brought by a man injured at a Warminster ice hockey rink to the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, from its counterpart court in Philadelphia.
Superior Court judges Jack A. Panella, Maria McLaughlin and Daniel D. McCaffery chose to uphold the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas ruling on Sept. 14, in Max Kanevsky’s lawsuit against Revolution Ice Rink, LLC, Black Bear Sports Group, Inc. and Scott F. DeRosa.
Black Bear owns and operates ice hockey rinks both in and outside the Commonwealth, and has its principal place of business in Chevy Chase, Maryland. Revolution, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Black Bear, owns and operates a single ice hockey rink, owns a youth elite hockey team which plays its home games there and has its principal place of business in Warminster, Pennsylvania.
The recreational hockey rink owned and operated by Revolution, the Revolution Ice Gardens (the Rink), is also located in Warminster, Bucks County. On May 2, 2019, appellant suffered a compound leg fracture while playing recreational ice hockey at the Rink.
Kanevsky filed a civil action against the defendants in Philadelphia County on June 28, 2019, alleging a single count: That the negligence of the defendants resulted in his injuries. The defendants then filed joint preliminary objections to venue on July 19, 2019, arguing that none of them could be properly served in Philadelphia County because none were domiciled or conducted any business there.
At an evidentiary hearing held on Oct. 3, 2019, Kanevsky argued that venue was proper in Philadelphia County, citing a press release, published by Business Wire on March 5, 2019, written by Black Bear’s CEO Murry Gunty and provided by Black Bear Vice President Ryan Scott. The press release stated that the Rink is “the hockey hub of North Philadelphia.”
But the appellees responded that CEO Gunty’s comments were advertising, that advertising did not create proper venue in Philadelphia County, that the Rink did not keep a record of the residences of its customers and thus it was not possible to provide the data sought by Kanevsky.
The trial court entered the underlying order sustaining the appellees’ preliminary objections to improper venue and transferred this matter to the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas on Oct. 3, 2019.
In the appeal, Kanevsky argued the trial court abused its discretion in transferring venue to Bucks County, when Black Bear and Revolution regularly conduct business in Philadelphia County – and specifically, Kanevsky argued that the trial court failed to conduct a proper quantity and quality analysis of the contacts the appellees have in Philadelphia, as required in Purcell v. Bryn Mawr Hospital.
However, the Superior Court’s complement of judges disagreed.
“The trial court found Bryn Mawr Hospital had sufficient contacts with Philadelphia, on the basis that Bryn Mawr had contractual affiliations with residency programs in Philadelphia, purchased goods and services from businesses in Philadelphia to further its business in Montgomery County, and maintained and paid for continuous advertisements in Philadelphia,” McCaffery stated.
“On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania concluded that venue was improper in Philadelphia County. The Purcell court found that the business conducted by Bryn Mawr in Philadelphia was in furtherance of its objectives in Montgomery County, and stated, “Our conclusion would be different if, for example, Bryn Mawr established a branch clinic in Philadelphia where paying customers would be diagnosed or treated on the premises in Philadelphia, just as there can be no question that Bryn Mawr does business in Montgomery County.”
Similar to the circumstances in Purcell, McCaffery said that “venue might be proper in Philadelphia if appellees owned and operated property in Philadelphia as they do in Warminster, Bucks County”, and that the trial court did in fact correctly apply the Purcell analysis.
“The trial court found no evidence of business activity by appellees in Philadelphia, and found the March 5, 2019, press release, containing CEO Gunty’s comments, was an advertisement. The press release, describing the Rink as a hub of hockey activity within Philadelphia, did not constitute an essential act for the existence of Black Bear or the accomplishment of its corporate objectives,” McCaffery said.
“We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining appellees’ preliminary objections to venue and transferring this matter to the Bucks County Court of Common Pleas. Thus, appellant is not entitled to relief.”
The Superior Court upheld the case’s transfer to a Bucks County court.
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 3001 EDA 2019
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 190607507
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com