Ritchey v. Rutter's Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 October 2022
• Docket Number: 2219 EDA 2020
• Parties: David RITCHEY and Holly Ritchey v. RUTTER'S INC., Rutter's Holding, Inc., and CHR Corporation and General Motors Company, Supreme Corporation, Jiffy Lube International, Inc., Kathleen Sweigart, and Keith McNaughton, Jr. Appeal of: Rutter's Inc., Rutter's Holding, Inc., and CHR Corporation
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

286 A.3d 248

David RITCHEY and Holly Ritchey

v. RUTTER'S INC., Rutter's Holding, Inc., and CHR Corporation and General Motors Company, Supreme Corporation, Jiffy Lube International, Inc., Kathleen Sweigart, and Keith McNaughton, Jr.Appeal of: Rutter's Inc., Rutter's Holding, Inc., and CHR Corporation

No. 2219 EDA 2020

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued October 26, 2021

Filed October 20, 2022

Reargument Denied December 30, 2022

Angela M. Heim, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

Howard J. Bashman, Willow Grove, for Ritchey, appellee.

Glenn A. Ricketti, Philadelphia, for Sweigart, appellee.

Brian L. Wolensky, Philadelphia, for General Motors Company, appellee.

Dennis R. Callahan, Philadelphia, for Supreme Corporation, appellee.

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and PELLEGRINI, J.^*

OPINION BY LAZARUS, J.:

Defendants, Rutter's Inc., Rutter's Holding, Inc., and CHR Corporation (collectively, Rutter's) appeal from the trial court's order¹ denying their motion to transfer venue, from Philadelphia County to either Cumberland County or York County, on the basis of forum non conveniens . See Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1). After careful review, we affirm.

Plaintiffs, David and Holly Ritchey (h/w) (collectively, the Ritcheys), reside in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County. Rutter's is a Pennsylvania corporation that has its principal place of business in York, Pennsylvania, and regularly conducts business in Philadelphia. On October 4, 2017, near the intersection of Slate Hill Road and Appleton Street in Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, David Ritchey sustained personal injuries when a GMC² truck, owned by Rutter's and operated by a Rutter's employee,³ stopped quickly to make a left-hand turn.⁴ As a result of the truck's abrupt stop, Mr. Ritchey lost control of and was thrown from his motorcycle. Mr. Ritchey sustained catastrophic and permanent injuries, including, but not limited to, a traumatic brain injury, fractured bones and ribs, vision loss, severe headaches, and cognition and memory loss.

Immediately after the accident, Mr. Ritchey was airlifted to Penn State Health Milton S. Hershey Medical Center (Hershey), in Dauphin County, for emergency medical care. After being released from Hershey, Mr. Ritchey received post-accident medical care for approximately three months at Jefferson University Hospital (Jefferson) and Magee Rehabilitation Hospital (Magee), both located in Philadelphia. In March and April 2018 and, again, in January and February 2019, Mr. Ritchey received rehabilitative care at Messiah Lifeways, which is located in Cumberland County.

On August 14, 2019, the Ritcheys filed a multi-count complaint against Defendants⁵ in Philadelphia County. In their complaint, the Ritcheys raised claims of negligence against Rutter's, Jiffy Lube, GM, and Supreme Corporation (Supreme) (Counts I-III), strict products liability against GM and Supreme (Count IV), and breach of express and implied warranties against GM and Supreme (Count V).⁶ The Ritcheys alleged that the Rutter's truck "was equipped with an unreasonably dangerous and defectively designed rear brake light apparatus that failed to effectively warn vehicles travelling behind the truck of sudden stops." Ritchey Complaint, 8/14/19, at ¶ 19. On November 22, 2019, Rutter's filed an answer and new matter, including cross-claims. The Ritcheys filed a reply to Rutter's new matter.

On December 27, 2019, Rutter's and CHR Corporation moved to join, as additional Defendants, Kathleen Sweigert and Keith McNaughton—the individuals who allegedly operated the two motor vehicles traveling between Mr. Ritchey's motorcycle and the Rutter's truck when the incident in question occurred. See Motion for Leave to File Joinder Complaint, 12/27/19, at ¶ 5; see also Pa.R.C.P. 2253 (joinder of parties). On January 22, 2019, the court granted the motion and permitted Rutter's to file a joinder complaint against Sweigert and McNaughton. Rutter's filed its joinder complaint on January 28, 2019, and, after being served, Sweigert and McNaughton were joined in the case.⁷

On March 16, 2020, Rutter's filed a motion to transfer venue, based upon Rule 1006(d)(1) ; GM, Jiffy Lube, and Supreme joined in the motion to transfer. In the motion, Rutter's alleged that the case should be transferred from Philadelphia County to either Cumberland County or York County for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, where: the underlying accident occurred in Cumberland County; none of the parties is domiciled or maintains its principal places of business in Philadelphia County; and an overwhelming number of witnesses are located in or adjacent to Cumberland County or York County and "would suffer significant hardship and inconvenience if forced to travel more than 100 miles (each way) to Philadelphia County for depositions and trial." Appellants’ Brief, at 7. To support its motion to transfer venue, Rutter's attached 20 witness affidavits wherein each affiant attested to the fact that venue in Philadelphia County would be a "great hardship due to personal, family, and employment responsibilities and would otherwise be extremely inconvenient."

The Ritcheys filed a motion opposing the motion to transfer; Rutter's filed a reply to the Ritcheys’ opposition motion. Between June and July of 2020, the parties conducted several remote depositions⁸ for purposes of the transfer motion. In addition, the parties filed supplemental briefs on the issue. On July 30, 2020, the trial court denied Rutter's motion to transfer without holding a hearing or issuing an opinion.

On September 15, 2020, Rutter's filed a petition for permission to amend the July 30, 2020 order to include language certifying the interlocutory order for immediate appeal. See Pa.R.A.P. 312, 1311(b) ; 42 Pa.C.S. § 702(b). The trial court denied the motion.⁹ Although the trial judge did not initially author a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion, in an order denying Rutter's petition for permission to appeal, the Honorable James Crumlish, III, "provided the salient factors that [he] considered in exercising [hi]s discretion" to deny Rutter's petition to transfer venue, stating:

1. The [c]ourt took into consideration the location of potential witnesses, their relationships to the parties and the availability of alternatives to in[-]person discovery and in[-]court testimony to alleviate inconvenience to witnesses, methods the [c]ourt itself has sought to perfect during the emergency from [the pandemic] shutdown;

2. The [c]ourt further considered the extensive treatment that Plaintiff David Ritchey received at medical facilities in Philadelphia, treatment that was not disclosed in Defendants’ moving papers, and treatment that provides more than an inconsequential or coincidental connection to this jurisdiction;

3. The [c]ourt considered the nature of the injuries suffered by Plaintiff and the substantial likelihood that both the liability and damages phases of the case would require a significant number of experts, individuals for whom neither Philadelphia nor York [n]or Cumberland County would be a convenient forum;

4. The [c]ourt considered [ ] the (even if remote) possibility Defendants’ motivation or the transfer amounted to forum shopping to a jurisdiction with a lower verdict potential; and

5. [T]he [c]ourt took into consideration these factors in addition to the arguments of the parties and concluded that, in its discretion, Defendants had not met their burden to show that Plaintiffs’ choice of forum was vexatious, oppressive, or overly burdensome to Defendants.

Order, 11/4/20, at 1-2.

On November 13, 2020, Rutter's filed a petition for review in this Court, see 42 Pa.C.S. § 5571(d) ; Pa.R.A.P. 1311, and an application for stay, both of which our Court granted on December 10, 2020. See Per Curiam Order, 12/10/20. In its appellate brief, Rutter's raises the following issue for our consideration:

Whether the [trial] court abused its discretion and/or committed an error of law in failing to follow the legal standard for transferring venue based on forum non conveniens established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc. 701 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1997), and Bratic v. Rubendall 99 A.3d 1 ([Pa.] 2014), where the "totality of the circumstances" overwhelmingly support transfer of venue.

Appellants’ Brief, at 4.

On March 24, 2022, this panel remanded the matter to the trial court "for the preparation of a complete Rule 1925(a) opinion, wherein it [was to weigh[ ] all the relevant factors,[ ] including the averments in the twenty detailed affidavits offered by the defense, appl[y] Bratic to the facts of this case, and give[ ] due consideration to the significance of the distance between the forum county and the transfer counties, Cumberland and York, in this matter." Ritchey v. Rutter's Inc. , No. 2219 EDA 2020, at *18, 2022 WL 872497 (Pa. Super. filed March 24, 2022) (unpublished memorandum decision). On May 2, 2022, Judge Crumlish filed an 11-page Rule 1925(a) opinion discussing the reasons for denying Defendants’ motion to transfer. Specifically, the court found that the 20 affidavits represented a "superficial [,] forced showing of inconvenience," and that "the witnesses[’] statements indicate that any interruption of their daily activities to attend a trial anywhere represents a hardship, with the additional distance enhancing the time required to participate[, and that d]istance, alone, as an abstract factor[,] is an insufficient basis upon which to transfer this matter." Rule 1925(a) Opinion, 5/2/22, at 10-11. The court also mentioned that by using the "tools available to the court," id. at 10, convenience may be achieved without witnesses having to travel the long distance from York or Cumberland County to Philadelphia. The parties submitted supplemental briefs after the court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion on remand. On August 23, 2022, this Court heard reargument on the transfer issue. The matter is now ripe for disposition.

It is well established that "a plaint...