Superior Court Vacates Venue Transfer, Orders Discovery on Defendant’s Business Activities in Original County

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated and remanded a trial court’s transfer of venue order, holding that the trial court had erroneously granted the order because it had failed to first order venue-related discovery where evidence indicated that the appellee conducted business activities in the county where the case was originally filed. 

The plaintiff brought a negligence action against the owners of a furniture store, alleging she suffered injuries as a result of one of the defendant’s employees overloading a pallet-jack, which led to a box falling on her hand. In its preliminary objections, the defendant claimed that venue was improper in Luzerne County and should be moved to Lycoming County because that was their registered principal place of business; the defendant had never conducted business in Luzerne County; and neither party were residents of Luzerne County. The defendant also attached an sworn affidavit by a corporate officer of the business, who swore that the aforementioned claims were true. 

The plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the defendant’s preliminary objections, claiming that venue was proper in Luzerne County and requested to conduct discovery in venue-related issues. 

The appellate court reviewed the law of venue in Pennsylvania and held that whether a corporation regularly conducts business in a particular county depends upon the “quality” and “quantity” of the business conducted in the county. The court found that activities, such as free delivery, setups and removals, like the ones offered by the defendant, would satisfy the “quality” prong of the analysis. It then held that the “quantity” prong would be satisfied by activities that are regularly taken even if they only amount to a small part of a business’ total activities. Therefore, given the conflicting evidence offered by both parties, mainly regarding the “quantity” prong, the appellate court held that venue-related discovery was necessary to resolve the competing venue claims. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}