A coalition of industry and legal organizations is challenging a decision that they assert could severely restrict defendants’ ability to contest a plaintiff’s choice of forum in Pennsylvania. The case is currently under review by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The organizations argue that the ruling pending before the court sets an unreasonably high standard for proving that a venue is oppressive.
In two amicus briefs submitted to the high court, defense-side amici claimed that an October ruling from the state’s Superior Court “invented” this heightened standard. According to the briefs, if the ruling is upheld, it could lead to a host of negative outcomes for defendants trying to argue that a forum is inconvenient. For a detailed examination of the implications, consider reviewing the initial case information, viewable here.
David Senoff, a partner at First Law Strategy Group, downplayed the notion that the ruling represents a major legal shift, describing such concerns as unfounded. Additional context and ongoing updates can be found here.