This matter arose out of an incident during which a pressure cooker that the Plaintiff had purchased exploded while the Plaintiff was using it.
The foreign Plaintiff brought suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on a products liability claim relative to a product made in America. Even though the product was not manufactured in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania based employee made media representations about the product by marketing it from its Pennsylvania studios. The court additionally noted that one of the Defendants had a principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
The court noted that, although the Plaintiff’s foreign country was an adequate forum for the litigation of his personal injury matter, a foreign Plaintiff can support her choice of forum by making a strong showing of convenience.
The court in this matter noted that the connection of this matter to Pennsylvania established the convenience element in this matter.
More specifically, the court noted that none of the evidence located in the Plaintiff’s home country was critical for the litigation of the claim.
The court additionally noted that, as for the witnesses based in the United States within the Defendants’ control, it would be significantly more convenient for those witnesses to travel to a trial in the United States rather than going abroad to a foreign country.
Notably, the court also emphasized, on the issue of convenience, that the depositions of any relevant witnesses could be conducted remotely.
The court also found that the completion of a trial in the United States would be more convenient to all of the parties interested.
Lastly, the court emphasized that Pennsylvania has an interest in the safety of products introduced into the stream of commerce from Pennsylvania.
The foreign Plaintiff brought suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on a products liability claim relative to a product made in America. Even though the product was not manufactured in Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania based employee made media representations about the product by marketing it from its Pennsylvania studios. The court additionally noted that one of the Defendants had a principal place of business in Pennsylvania.
The court noted that, although the Plaintiff’s foreign country was an adequate forum for the litigation of his personal injury matter, a foreign Plaintiff can support her choice of forum by making a strong showing of convenience.
The court in this matter noted that the connection of this matter to Pennsylvania established the convenience element in this matter.
More specifically, the court noted that none of the evidence located in the Plaintiff’s home country was critical for the litigation of the claim.
The court additionally noted that, as for the witnesses based in the United States within the Defendants’ control, it would be significantly more convenient for those witnesses to travel to a trial in the United States rather than going abroad to a foreign country.
Notably, the court also emphasized, on the issue of convenience, that the depositions of any relevant witnesses could be conducted remotely.
The court also found that the completion of a trial in the United States would be more convenient to all of the parties interested.
Lastly, the court emphasized that Pennsylvania has an interest in the safety of products introduced into the stream of commerce from Pennsylvania.
The court in this matter ruled, after careful consideration of the private and public interest factors, that litigating this case in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania would not result in oppression and vexation to the defendants out of all proportion to the Plaintiff's convenience. As such, the court denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss this action on forum non conveniens grounds.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK. The Court's companion Order can be viewed HERE.
I send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.