private and public interest factors in Pennsylvania

2021Petty v. Suburban General Hospital, 525 A.2d 1230, 1232 (Pa.Super. 1987).

2021Petty v. Suburban General Hospital, 525 A.2d 1230, 1232 (Pa.Super. 1987).

2021Given this record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court's weighing the private and public interest factors differently than the other eight cases and concluding that “litigation in the plaintiff's chosen forum would serve the interests of justice under the particular circumstances.” Robbins, 212 A.3d at 87 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2021Given this record, we discern no abuse of discretion in the trial court's weighing the private and public interest factors differently than the other eight cases and concluding that “litigation in the plaintiff's chosen forum would serve the interests of justice under the particular circumstances.” Robbins, 212 A.3d at 87 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2021See Alford v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 531 A.2d 792 (Pa.Super. 1987). - 13 - J-A05034-21 may be less stringently considered when the plaintiff has chosen a foreign forum to litigate his or her claims.” Furthermore, To determine whether such “weighty reasons” exist as would overcome the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the trial court must examine both the private and public interest factors involved.

2021See Alford v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 531 A.2d 792 (Pa.Super. 1987). - 12 - J-A05035-21 *** [W]ith respect to the initial factor, we note that “a court may find that the presumption in favor of a plaintiff’s choice of forum may be less stringently considered when the plaintiff has chosen a foreign forum to litigate his or her claims.” Furthermore, To determine whether such “weighty reasons” exist as would overcome the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the trial court must examine both the private and public interest factors involved.

2021Ficarra, 242 A.3d at 339 (footnote and some citations omitted).

2021Ficarra, 242 A.3d at 339 (footnote and some citations omitted).

2018In deciding whether weighty reasons exist so as to overcome the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the trial court must “examine both the private and public interest factors involved.” Engstrom v. Bayer Corp., 855 A.2d 52, 55 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied sub nom., Weiding v. Bayer Corp., 887 ____________________________________________ defendant.

2004Engstrom, v. Bayer Corp., 855 A.2d 52, 56 (Pa.Super.2004).

2022In determining whether the defendant has met this burden, the court must consider the private and public interest factors involved in the opposing venues, such as “the relative ease of access to sources of proof,” “availability of compulsory process,” the “possibility [to] view [the] premises [involved in the dispute],” and the issue of imposing jury duty “upon the people of a -9- J-A11034-22 community which has no relation to the litigation.” Id. at 497 (quoting Wright v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, 215 A.3d 982 , 991-92 (Pa.Super. 2019)).

2018See Bratic v. Rubendall, 99 A.3d 1, 7 (Pa. 2014).

2013Aerospace, 696 A.2d at 814 , citing Piper, 454 U.S. at 255 (internal citation omitted).

1997Piper, 454 U.S. at 247-48 , 102 S.Ct. at 261-62 .

2004They are (1) that since it is for the plaintiff to choose the place of suit, his choice of forum should not be disturbed except for weighty reasons, and (2) that the action will not be dismissed in any event unless an alternative forum is available to the plaintiff.” Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 399 Pa. 553 , 160 A.2d 549, 553 (1960). ¶ 9 Here, the trial court found that the latter of these two factors is not at issue, as Appellants’ home states provide alternative fora. 4 Indeed, the Federal District Court in Seattle, Washington operates a mass tort program similar to that of Philadelphia. ¶ 10 To d

2004They are (1) that since it is for the plaintiff to choose the place of suit, his choice of forum should not be disturbed except for weighty reasons, and (2) that the action will not be dismissed in any event unless an alternative forum is available to the plaintiff.” Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 399 Pa. 553 , 160 A.2d 549, 553 (1960). ¶ 9 Here, the trial court found that the latter of these two factors is not at issue, as Appellants’ home states provide alternative fora. 4 Indeed, the Federal District Court in Seattle, Washington operates a mass tort program similar to that of Philadelphia. ¶ 10 To d

2022See Lyndes, - 13 - J-A09007-22 254 A.3d at 732, 735 .6 In addressing the private factors, the trial court acknowledged that Appellant identified four witnesses who formerly worked at Appellee’s headquarters.

2020See also Hovatter, 193 A.3d at 424 (“[I]f there is any basis for the trial court’s decision [on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens], the decision must stand.”) (citation and quotation marks omitted).

2006“Furthermore, a court will ... not dismiss for forum non conve-niens unless justice strongly militates in favor of relegating the plaintiff to another forum.” Poley v. Delmarva Power and Light Co., 779 A.2d 544, 546 (Pa.Super.2001) (citation omitted). ¶ 9 In determining whether “weighty reasons” exist to overcome the plaintiffs choice of forum, the trial court is required to examine both the private and public interest factors involved in the case.

2004“A stipulation made by a defendant that he or she will submit to service of process and not raise the statute of limitations as a defense has been accepted by the courts as eliminating the concern regarding the availability of an alternate forum.” Jones v. Borden, Inc., 455 Pa.Super. 110 , 687 A.2d 392, 395 (1996), citing Plum v. Tampax Inc., 399 Pa. 553 , 160 A.2d 549 (1960). 3 ¶ 5 In determining whether “weighty reasons” exist so as to overcome the plaintiffs choice of forum, the trial court must examine both the private and public interest factors involved.

2004“A stipulation made by a defendant that he or she will submit to service of process and not raise the statute of limitations as a defense has been accepted by the courts as eliminating the concern regarding the availability of an alternate forum.” Jones v. Borden, Inc., 455 Pa.Super. 110 , 687 A.2d 392, 395 (1996), citing Plum v. Tampax Inc., 399 Pa. 553 , 160 A.2d 549 (1960). 3 ¶ 5 In determining whether “weighty reasons” exist so as to overcome the plaintiffs choice of forum, the trial court must examine both the private and public interest factors involved.