In a non-precedential decision in the case of Troseth v. Carson Helicopters Holdings Co., No. 249 EDA 2022 (Pa. Super. Oct. 8, 2024 Bowes, J., Olson, J., McLaughlin, J.) (Op. by Bowes, J.) (McLaughlin, J., dissenting), the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed a trial court’s overruling of Preliminary Objections asserted by a Defendant on the issue of proper venue in Philadelphia County.
The court ruled that other Defendants having a contractual relationship with a Philadelphia-based company, largely prior to the filing of the subject lawsuit, was insufficient to support a finding of proper venue in Philadelphia County. The court emphasized that the question of proper venue is to be determined based upon the facts at issue at the point the lawsuit is filed.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court otherwise ruled that incidental dealings with a company, not involving a Defendant’s core business purposes, are insufficient to establish venue.
The court more specifically indicated that doing business with a Philadelphia County company does not amount to doing business in Philadelphia County if the obtained goods, services, or personnel are utilized elsewhere to further the Defendant’s business activities.
The court additionally ruled that venue as to a subsidiary does to automatically create proper venue relative to a parent corporation.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this
LINK. The Dissenting Opinion can be viewed
HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.