PA Superior Court Gives Plaintiffs Upper Hand When Choosing Venue

March 22, 2021

By: Eric G. Soller , Christin M. Roberts


Big Corporations can be sued anywhere they conduct business, no matter how insignificant the local sales are compared to the national sales.

Although plaintiffs have the advantage in choosing the forum, defendants have the assurance that they cannot be sued in forums where they do not conduct significant business. On March 8, 2021, that assurance became smaller – by about 95.995%.  In an en banc opinion, the Pennsylvania Superior Court determined that venue was proper in Philadelphia County even though Defendant’s, Husqvarna Professional Products (HPP), local sales only accounted for .005% of its $1.4 billion national sales.

The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provide that venue is proper against a corporation or similar entity in a county where it “regularly conducts business.” In determining whether venue is proper under this Rule, courts “employ a quality-quantity analysis.” In ruling that venue was not proper in Philadelphia County, the trial court determined that Defendant satisfied the quality prong, but not the quantity prong; the trial court granted Defendant’s motion to transfer the case to Buck’s County. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to rely almost exclusively on the percentage of defendant’s business in a county when addressing whether venue was proper.

Specifically, the Court noted “[t]he percentage of a company’s overall business that it conducts in a given county, standing alone, is not meaningful and is not determinative of the ‘quantity’ prong. Each case turns on its own facts, and we must evaluate evidence of the extent of a defendant’s business against the nature of the business at issue.” The Court determined that because “the percentage of sales a multi-billion-dollar company makes in a particular county will almost always be a tiny percentage of its total sales [,] Courts thus should not consider percentages in isolation.”

Ultimately, the Court concluded that having an authorized dealer in Philadelphia and selling $75,310 worth of products through that dealer in 2016 in Philadelphia were “sufficiently continuous so as to be considered habitual.” Therefore, venue in Philadelphia was proper despite its insignificant sales.  To read the opinion click here.

News & Events

Related News

20 Pietragallo Lawyers Named in 2022 The Best Lawyers in America and Ones to Watch
August 19, 2021
Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce that 20 lawyers have been named as 2022 The Best Lawyers in America and 2022 Ones to Watch, including two lawyers who were recognized for Bet-the-Company Litigation. Read More
24 Pietragallo Lawyers Named in 2021 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers and Rising Stars
June 9, 2021
Including Recognition in Top 100 in Pennsylvania and Top 100 In Philadelphia Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick & Raspanti, LLP is pleased to announce that 24 attorneys have been named as 2021 Super Lawyers and 2021 Rising Stars, including two attorneys who were also recognized in the Top 100 in Pennsylvania and Top 100 in Philadelphia. Read More

Upcoming Events

Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, and Civil Litigation CLE (Webinar)
November 3, 2021
As Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies gain further acceptance in the portfolios held by persons, corporations, trusts, and estates, fiduciaries and civil litigants must be aware of how courts will handle claims when the ownership or stewardship of these assets becomes disputed.
Read More
Privacy, Data and Cyber Security: The Current Legal Landscape CLE (Webinar)
November 11, 2021
Companies and consumers alike are under perpetual assault from bad actors as IoT, work from home, and cloud migration – all intended to improve productivity – have expanded the cyber attack surface.
Read More
View More News & Events