HARRISBURG – The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has reversed a decision made to transfer a personal injury case against Comcast to Montgomery County from a Philadelphia court, and remanded the action to its court of origin for further proceedings.
On May 4, Superior Court judges Carolyn H. Nichols, Megan Sullivan and Dan Pellegrini ruled to overturn the prior transfer of the case and remand proceedings to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
“This procedurally unusual case arises from a March 31, 2018 incident wherein Heckrote tripped and fell outside of her home located in Schaner’s Mobile Home Park at 3000 East High Street in Sanatoga, Pennsylvania, in Montgomery County. Heckrote alleged that she fell on cables and/or wires in front of her home attached to a fallen telephone pole and that she suffered severe injuries caused by the negligence of the Comcast defendants,” Pellegrini explained.
Heckrote brought the instant action on Nov. 21, 2019, by filing a complaint against the Comcast defendants in Philadelphia County. In April 2020, the Comcast defendants argued that Philadelphia County is an “oppressive and vexatious forum” and that venue is instead appropriate in Montgomery County, and filed a motion to transfer venue pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(d)(1).
On May 16, 2020, the trial court granted the motion, but mistakenly noted that Heckrote had not filed a response to the motion to transfer venue. The trial court dismissed the action without prejudice for Heckrote to refile it in Montgomery County within 20 days.
“On May 21, 2020, Heckrote filed a motion for reconsideration challenging the court transferring venue without holding a hearing or allowing for discovery. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration on May 28, 2020. Heckrote timely filed the instant appeal from the trial court’s May 16, 2020 order on June 8, 2020. Several months later, on Feb. 16, 2021, the trial court ordered Heckrote to file a Rule 1925(b) statement and she filed a statement the next day,” Pellegrini said.
“On April 26, 2021, the trial court entered an amended order it which it essentially sought to rescind its May 16, 2020 order by granting Heckrote’s motion for reconsideration and denying the Comcast defendants’ motion to transfer venue. In September 2021, the trial court issued an opinion requesting that we remand this case to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas to be heard.”
The Court explained that when it initially granted the Comcast defendants’ motion for transfer on May 16, 2020, there was an ongoing global pandemic and issues with the City of Philadelphia computers and due to these issues, this Court was not in receipt of plaintiff’s answer to the defendant’s motion to transfer.
“A motion for reconsideration was then filed by plaintiff on May 21, 2020, which this Court denied. After receiving the plaintiff’s notice of appeal, and issuing a 1925(b) statement of matters, this Court received plaintiff’s statement of matters, which stated that this Court did not consider the April 29, 2020 answer to the defendant’s motion to transfer,” Pellegrini said.
“Upon reading this issue, this Court went back and found that plaintiff had indeed filed an Answer. On April 12, this Court sent a letter to the Superior Court requesting that this case be remanded and on April 26, 2021, this Court issued an amended order granting plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration and denying defendants’ motion to transfer.”
Pellegrini explained the Superior Court issued a per curiam order denying the trial court’s request for remand without prejudice for this panel to consider the issue.
Meanwhile, Heckrote argued that remand of this case to the trial court is necessary because the court granted the Comcast defendants’ motion to transfer venue on grounds of forum non conveniens without considering her response to that motion.
Heckrote also maintained the trial court abused its discretion in granting the motion without holding a hearing on the issue of venue or allowing any time for discovery to develop a record relating to the appropriateness of Philadelphia as her chosen forum.
“In this case, the record reflects that a breakdown in the court system caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and computer system problems resulted in the trial court’s lack of awareness of Heckrote’s response to the Comcast defendants’ motion to transfer this case out of Philadelphia County. The trial court expressly advised that it did not go back to review the case filings and thereby discover Heckrote’s missing response until she had already filed this appeal and the court read her Rule 1925(b) statement. As a result, the trial court inadvertently did not require the Comcast defendants to meet their heavy burden of establishing with detailed information on the record that Heckrote’s choice of forum is oppressive or vexatious,” Pellegrini said.
“In light of the breakdown in the operation of the court and considering that the trial court has requested remand of this case, we reverse its May 16, 2020 order and remand for further proceedings consistent with this memorandum. Order reversed. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 1409 EDA 2020
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 191102838
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com