JURISDICTION – VENUE – DOING BUSINESS

Mendoza-Colon v. Luscomb, Inc., 335 A.3d 1207 (April 10, 2025) Olson, J.
Judges: BEFORE: BOWES, J., OLSON, J., and STABILE, J.
Opinion by: OLSON
Appellant, Yesenia Mendoza-Colon, appeals from the order entered on November 22, 2023. The subject order sustained the preliminary objections to venue filed by Luscomb, Inc., Gary’s Furniture, and John Doe, Employee of Luscomb, Inc. (hereinafter, collectively, “the Defendants”), and ordered that the matter be transferred from Luzerne County to the Lycoming County Court of Common Pleas. We vacate and remand.
In essence, the venue criteria found at Rule 2179(a)(2) “provide[] a theory of transient jurisdiction by counties in which the corporation is present by virtue of its business activities or contacts. In this circumstance, and provided that the business contacts are more than incidental, a corporation can be compelled to defend itself.” Purcell, 579 A.2d at 1284. The rationale and purpose of the rule is to “permit a plaintiff to institute suit against the defendant in the county most convenient for [the plaintiff] and his witnesses” while, at the same time, assuring that “the corporation which has been sued ha[s] sufficient connection to the county.” Burdett Oxygen Co. v. I.R. Wolfe & Sons, Inc., 433 Pa. 291, 249 A.2d 299, 302 (Pa. 1969) (quotation marks and citations omitted); Purcell, 579 A.2d at 1286.
Given the venue principles set forth above, Appellant, at the preliminary objection stage of the proceedings, requested that the trial court grant her permission to conduct discovery on the venue-related issues, with particular regard to “the number of furniture deliveries, setups, and removals made by [Defendant Gary’s Furniture] in Luzerne County.” The trial court denied Appellant’s request for discovery and, instead, sustained the Defendants’ preliminary objections based upon Mr. Colburn’s sworn statement that Defendant Gary’s Furniture “does not conduct, and has never conducted, any business in Luzerne County.” Respectfully, we conclude that the trial court’s order was an abuse of discretion, and that the competing venue claims in this case cannot be decided without further discovery and, potentially, a hearing.
Second, resolution of the current venue issue requires discovery and a determination of whether (and to what extent) there were “furniture deliveries, setups, and removals made by [Defendant Gary’s Furniture] in Luzerne County,” as well as discovery and a determination of whether any such acts were “so continuous and sufficient to be termed general or habitual.” See Hangey, 304 A.3d at 1146-1147 (as to the “quantity” prong of the “regularly conducts business” test, the Supreme Court emphasized: “[i]t must be remembered that it is the word ‘regularly’ which we are construing and not ‘principally.’ A corporation may perform acts ‘regularly’ even through these acts make up a small part of its total activities. Nor does ‘regularly’ necessarily mean . . . that the acts must be performed on a fixed schedule or, when driving is involved, over a fixed route. The question is whether the acts are ‘regularly’ performed within the context of the particular business”) (corrections omitted). This evidence is necessary to properly determine both the “quality” and “quantity” prongs of the “regularly conducts business” test. Further, since this evidence is in the exclusive possession of Defendant Gary’s Furniture — and since this evidence has yet to be disclosed to Appellant or evaluated by the trial court — we vacate the trial court’s order and remand this case for further proceedings.
Order vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
• Case transferred from Luzerne County to Lycoming County.
• Case was against Gary’s Furniture
• Appellant lived in Lancaster County and Gary’s Furniture was in Lycoming County
• The Court abuses discretion to transfer the case.
• The governing criteria in Rule 2179(a)(2)
• County can be sued where it is found doing business
• Discovery is necessary to decide this issue and the Court dismissed the matter before there was any discovery and determination of whether there were activities of Gary’s Furniture in Luzerne County.