Over the past few years, trial courts and the Pennsylvania Superior Court have been inundated and wrestled with battling litigants who prefer one venue over another to litigate their clients’ cases. In deciding the question whether one county is more convenient to litigate a lawsuit over another, our courts have been guided by legal analyses provided in Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions published more than a decade ago. See Bratic v. Rubendall, 626 Pa. 550 (Pa. 2014); Zappala v. Brandolini Property Management, 589 Pa. 516 (2006). These analyses seem straightforward, but in truth their application to the facts of each case can be complicated—and guided by procedural niceties more often than well-founded legal principles. Our Supreme Court has once again taken up the question of forum non conveniens in a case styled Tranter v. Z &D Tour, No. 18 EAP 2024—32 EAP 2024. The Pennsylvania Superior Court decision is reported at 303 A. 3d 1070 (2023). Hoping that the court will provide greater clarity and clear-cut guidance in evaluating a party’s choice of venue and a challenge to it based upon forum non conveniens, more than a dozen amicus briefs have been filed along with the parties’ briefs. Note: This author has written an amicus brief on behalf of interested parties.

The perplexing issues facing litigants and our courts in resolving forum challenges are the following:

  • What does it mean factually or legally to “give the plaintiff’s choice of forum great weight and deference”?
  • How should a court gauge the need to change venue based upon “the convenience of parties and witnesses”?
  • What must be proven to satisfy the moving party’s heavy burden to prove the selected forum is either oppressive or vexatious?
  • What evidence is sufficient to meet the movant’s burden of proof that a change of venue is needed to accommodate the parties and witnesses?
  • Should the logistics of the pretrial processing of the case or the logistics of the trial of the case be prioritized in deciding the question of convenience or inconvenience to the parties and witnesses?
  • Should the resolution of a forum non conveniens challenge account for the use of videoconferencing technology in pretrial discovery and/or the trial of a case?
In 2024, the weighing of the convenience of parties and witnesses to litigate a particular lawsuit in the plaintiff’s chosen forum should be predicated upon certain undeniable facts related to the processing and trial of a case. In the end, the decision to transfer a case should be based upon the parties’ respective burdens of securing testimony and the difficulties which may arise if the case is litigated in one venue or another. If a motion to transfer is predicated upon “witness hardship,” then the moving party must furnish detailed information to establish that specifically identified witnesses are “key” to the defense and not available to testify if one venue is chosen over another. Neither general allegations identifying potential witnesses, nor a general statement of hardship is sufficient to meet the moving party’s burden of proof. See Bochetto v. Dimeling, Schreiber & Park, 151 A. 3d 1072, 1085-86 (Pa. Super. 2016); Ehmer v. Maxim Crane Works, 296 A. 3d 1202, 1208 (Pa. Super. 2023).