HARRISBURG – The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has remanded a motor vehicle injury case involving a driver for Amazon to a Philadelphia courtroom, ruling that the case had been improperly transferred to Montgomery County.
On Nov. 3, Superior Court judges Judith Ference Olson, Victor P. Stabile and Maria McLaughlin ruled to reverse a motion to transfer and remand Joseph Austin and Allison Austin’s action against Amazon.com, Inc. (doing business as “Amazon Flex”) and Destine Z. Mitchell to the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.
Olson authored the Court’s opinion in this matter.
“Appellants filed a complaint in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against Amazon and Mitchell. The complaint alleged causes of action for negligence, negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision, and loss of consortium. According to the allegations contained in the complaint, appellants’ causes of action arose from a vehicle accident that occurred on Sept. 20, 2019. 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. 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,” Olson said.
“On Nov. 14, 2022, Amazon moved to transfer venue to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(d)(1). 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.”
On Feb. 7, the trial court granted Amazon’s motion to transfer, leading the plaintiffs to appeal to the Superior Court and argued that a transfer based upon a theory of forum non conveniens was not properly supported.
Despite Amazon’s argument that “trial in Montgomery County will make it more convenient for all parties and potential witnesses to attend without excessive traveling and traffic issues” and the trial court granting the transfer motion – the trial court appeared to reverse itself in a later Rule 1925(a) opinion, issued on May 23 of this year.
“Amazon argued 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 Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. 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,” the trial court provided.
Olson added that “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.”
“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. While Amazon established, for example, that the accident site was closer to the courthouse in Montgomery County than the courthouse in Philadelphia County, this evidence merely demonstrates a greater traveling distance to the accident site from Philadelphia County and, therefore, a greater inconvenience,” Olson said.
“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. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s order granting Amazon’s motion to transfer and remand the case for further proceedings.”
Superior Court of Pennsylvania case 756 EDA 2023
Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas case 210300168
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com