Dickerson, P. v. United States Steel Corp.
Opinion
J-A18015-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
PHYLLIS DICKERSON, INDIVIDUALLY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE : PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF ROBERT DICKERSON, : ROBERT DICKERSON :
: :
v. :
: : No. 3131 EDA 2024
UNITED STATES STEEL : CORPORATION, SUNOCO, INC. : (R&M) F/K/A SUN COMPANY, INC. : AND F/K/A SUN OIL COMPANY, INC., : RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, : CRC INDUSTRIES, INC., HENKEL : CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND : AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : LOCTITE CORPORATION AND : HENKEL LOCTITE CORPORATION, BP : PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., : INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR- : IN-INTEREST TO SINCLAIR OIL : CORPORATION, ATLANTIC : RICHFIELD COMPANY, EXXON MOBIL : CORPORATION, UNIVAR USA, INC. : F/K/A AND SUCCESSOR-IN- : INTEREST TO UNIVAR : CORPORATION, VWR UNITED AND : VAN WATERS & ROGERS, INC., AND : AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : CHEMCENTRAL CORP., SUCCESSOR- : IN-INTEREST TO SOUTHWEST : SOLVENTS & CHEMICALS, AND AS : SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : UNITED PACIFIC CORPORATION, : ASHLAND, LLC, SUCCESSOR-IN- : INTEREST TO AND F/K/A ASHLAND, : INC., SAVOGRAN COMPANY, : HOUGHTON CHEMICAL : CORPORATION, UNION OIL : COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, HOP : ENERGY, LLC, METRO OIL AND :
J-A18015-25
CHEMICAL CORPORATION, : SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT : INTERNATIONAL, INC. :
: :
APPEAL OF: PHYLLIS DICKERSON, : INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT DICKERSON
Appeal from the Order Entered September 13, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 190703709
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025
Appellant, Phyllis Dickerson, individually and as administratrix of the
estate of Robert Dickerson, appeals from the order entered on September 13,
2024, which granted the motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non
conveniens, filed on behalf of, inter alia, Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Atlantic Richfield Company (“ARCO”), Henkel US Operations Corporation
(“Henkel”), CRC Industries, Inc. (“CRC”), and BP Products, North America,
Inc. (“BP”) (hereinafter, collectively, “the Defendants”). We affirm.
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this appeal:
Plaintiffs Robert Dickerson and Phyllis Dickerson [were married and, at all times, were] residents of North Carolina[. They] brought this action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on July 29, 2019, alleging that Mr. Dickerson developed Myelodysplastic Syndrome ("MSD") as the result of occupational exposure to benzene containing products during the course of his employment in North Carolina in the
J-A18015-25
years from 1955 to 2006.[1] Plaintiffs, at all times, were residents of North Carolina and Mr. Dickerson never lived or worked in Pennsylvania. Defendants are companies that manufactured, sold, marketed, and/or distributed products containing benzene that [Mr. Dickerson] allegedly worked with and was exposed to in the workplace. Such workplace exposure occurred in North Carolina.
Plaintiffs’ original Complaint, filed on July 29, 2019, set forth claims of negligence and gross negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, battery, fraud, and loss of consortium against [17] defendants, many of which contested [the trial court’s] jurisdiction. Because of these jurisdictional objections, this matter was delayed during the pendency of the litigation in [Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 266 A.3d 542 (Pa. 2021), vacated and remanded, 600 U.S. 122 (2023).] Of the original [17] defendants, only three were Pennsylvania corporations — CRC, Sunoco, and United States Steel Corporation. As of [September 13, 2024,] CRC [was] the only remaining Pennsylvania corporate [d]efendant.
[In 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, contending that the trial court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint and grant Plaintiffs leave to refile their case in North Carolina. On August 8, 2024, the trial court held oral argument on the Defendants’ motions. 2] At [argument], the [trial court] was informed that there are now [four] remaining Defendants: Exxon Mobil, Henkel, ARCO, and CRC. Plaintiffs allege[d] occupational exposure to benzene contained in Defendant CRC's Clean-R-Carb carburetor cleaner and Henkle's Permatex Gasket Adhesive. Defendants Exxon Mobil and ARCO are alleged to have supplied petroleum components containing benzene that were used in the manufacture of CRC's carburetor cleaner and Henkle's adhesive.
____________________________________________
1 Mr. Dickerson sadly passed away on June 10, 2023, from MSD.
2 The trial court initially denied the Defendants’ motions. However, the trial court granted the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and then reexamined the issue.
J-A18015-25
Defendants contest that Mr. Dickerson was [n]ever exposed to their products during the course of his employment and Defendant CRC denies that its carburetor cleaner contains benzene and/or that it caused [Mr. Dickerson’s] illness. Plaintiff, Mr. Dickerson, passed away on June 10, 2023 of MSD. He is survived by his wife Phyllis Dickerson, who is Plaintiff individually and as Administratrix of her late husband's estate.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/13/24, at 2-4.
During the August 8, 2024 argument on the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, the trial court concluded:
it doesn’t appear that trial is going to be scheduled any time soon. So . . . we’re back where we started. . . . [T]here are still preliminary objections outstanding . . . about personal jurisdiction. . . . So the plaintiff is going to wait another five years on this. Because it’s going to go back. [Defendants are] not giving up the fact that they believe that Justice Alito agreed with them that the plaintiff has no business filing lawsuits in – or Pennsylvania has no business asserting jurisdiction over companies that aren’t [their] province to have jurisdiction over.
N.T. Hearing, 8/8/24, at 20 and 43-45. Further, during argument, the
Defendants asserted: “in 2021[,] when this was first filed, all [Defendants]
agreed not to contest specific jurisdiction in North Carolina. There’s no
jurisdictional problems in North Carolina.” Id. at 47-48.
On September 13, 2024, the trial court entered its order, which granted
the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens.
Within the trial court’s accompanying opinion, the trial court concluded: 1)
trial in North Carolina would provide easier access to the sources of proof than
trial in Pennsylvania; 2) compelling process for unwilling witnesses would be
J-A18015-25
easier in North Carolina than in Pennsylvania; 3) “[Mr. Dickerson’s] general
working conditions are relevant and that a jury view of the workspace, the
ventilation, and whatever safety measures are in place, or not, would be a
reasonable defense of this case and that would be only possible in North
Carolina;” 4) “a trial in North Carolina would not only provide access to
relevant and material witnesses, it could be far more expeditious and
conceivably less costly;” 5) “there has been no evidence that a trial in
Pennsylvania could occur any earlier than in North Carolina;” 6) “North
Carolina courts and juries would have more of an interest in this case than
Pennsylvania [since] . . . Plaintiffs were residents of North Carolina, all of Mr.
Dickerson’s alleged exposure was in North Carolina, and [] all of the witnesses
with personal knowledge of his duties, work environment, and alleged
exposure as well as all of his treating physicians, are in North Carolina;” and,
7) “the vast majority of [Mr. Dickerson’s] workplace exposure to benzene was
alleged to have occurred from products and chemicals with no shown
manufacturing connection to Pennsylvania.” Trial Court Opinion, 9/13/24, at
1-17.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s final order
and now raises two claims to this Court:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J-A18015-25
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37
PHYLLIS DICKERSON, INDIVIDUALLY : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE : PENNSYLVANIA ESTATE OF ROBERT DICKERSON, : ROBERT DICKERSON :
: :
v. :
: : No. 3131 EDA 2024
UNITED STATES STEEL : CORPORATION, SUNOCO, INC. : (R&M) F/K/A SUN COMPANY, INC. : AND F/K/A SUN OIL COMPANY, INC., : RADIATOR SPECIALTY COMPANY, : CRC INDUSTRIES, INC., HENKEL : CORPORATION, INDIVIDUALLY AND : AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : LOCTITE CORPORATION AND : HENKEL LOCTITE CORPORATION, BP : PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC., : INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR- : IN-INTEREST TO SINCLAIR OIL : CORPORATION, ATLANTIC : RICHFIELD COMPANY, EXXON MOBIL : CORPORATION, UNIVAR USA, INC. : F/K/A AND SUCCESSOR-IN- : INTEREST TO UNIVAR : CORPORATION, VWR UNITED AND : VAN WATERS & ROGERS, INC., AND : AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : CHEMCENTRAL CORP., SUCCESSOR- : IN-INTEREST TO SOUTHWEST : SOLVENTS & CHEMICALS, AND AS : SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO : UNITED PACIFIC CORPORATION, : ASHLAND, LLC, SUCCESSOR-IN- : INTEREST TO AND F/K/A ASHLAND, : INC., SAVOGRAN COMPANY, : HOUGHTON CHEMICAL : CORPORATION, UNION OIL : COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, HOP : ENERGY, LLC, METRO OIL AND :
J-A18015-25
CHEMICAL CORPORATION, : SCHRADER-BRIDGEPORT : INTERNATIONAL, INC. :
: :
APPEAL OF: PHYLLIS DICKERSON, : INDIVIDUALLY AND AS : ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT DICKERSON
Appeal from the Order Entered September 13, 2024 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): 190703709
BEFORE: OLSON, J., DUBOW, J., and BECK, J.
MEMORANDUM BY OLSON, J.: FILED SEPTEMBER 8, 2025
Appellant, Phyllis Dickerson, individually and as administratrix of the
estate of Robert Dickerson, appeals from the order entered on September 13,
2024, which granted the motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non
conveniens, filed on behalf of, inter alia, Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Atlantic Richfield Company (“ARCO”), Henkel US Operations Corporation
(“Henkel”), CRC Industries, Inc. (“CRC”), and BP Products, North America,
Inc. (“BP”) (hereinafter, collectively, “the Defendants”). We affirm.
The trial court ably summarized the underlying facts of this appeal:
Plaintiffs Robert Dickerson and Phyllis Dickerson [were married and, at all times, were] residents of North Carolina[. They] brought this action in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas on July 29, 2019, alleging that Mr. Dickerson developed Myelodysplastic Syndrome ("MSD") as the result of occupational exposure to benzene containing products during the course of his employment in North Carolina in the
J-A18015-25
years from 1955 to 2006.[1] Plaintiffs, at all times, were residents of North Carolina and Mr. Dickerson never lived or worked in Pennsylvania. Defendants are companies that manufactured, sold, marketed, and/or distributed products containing benzene that [Mr. Dickerson] allegedly worked with and was exposed to in the workplace. Such workplace exposure occurred in North Carolina.
Plaintiffs’ original Complaint, filed on July 29, 2019, set forth claims of negligence and gross negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, battery, fraud, and loss of consortium against [17] defendants, many of which contested [the trial court’s] jurisdiction. Because of these jurisdictional objections, this matter was delayed during the pendency of the litigation in [Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 266 A.3d 542 (Pa. 2021), vacated and remanded, 600 U.S. 122 (2023).] Of the original [17] defendants, only three were Pennsylvania corporations — CRC, Sunoco, and United States Steel Corporation. As of [September 13, 2024,] CRC [was] the only remaining Pennsylvania corporate [d]efendant.
[In 2023, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, contending that the trial court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint and grant Plaintiffs leave to refile their case in North Carolina. On August 8, 2024, the trial court held oral argument on the Defendants’ motions. 2] At [argument], the [trial court] was informed that there are now [four] remaining Defendants: Exxon Mobil, Henkel, ARCO, and CRC. Plaintiffs allege[d] occupational exposure to benzene contained in Defendant CRC's Clean-R-Carb carburetor cleaner and Henkle's Permatex Gasket Adhesive. Defendants Exxon Mobil and ARCO are alleged to have supplied petroleum components containing benzene that were used in the manufacture of CRC's carburetor cleaner and Henkle's adhesive.
____________________________________________
1 Mr. Dickerson sadly passed away on June 10, 2023, from MSD.
2 The trial court initially denied the Defendants’ motions. However, the trial court granted the Defendants’ motion for reconsideration and then reexamined the issue.
J-A18015-25
Defendants contest that Mr. Dickerson was [n]ever exposed to their products during the course of his employment and Defendant CRC denies that its carburetor cleaner contains benzene and/or that it caused [Mr. Dickerson’s] illness. Plaintiff, Mr. Dickerson, passed away on June 10, 2023 of MSD. He is survived by his wife Phyllis Dickerson, who is Plaintiff individually and as Administratrix of her late husband's estate.
Trial Court Opinion, 9/13/24, at 2-4.
During the August 8, 2024 argument on the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, the trial court concluded:
it doesn’t appear that trial is going to be scheduled any time soon. So . . . we’re back where we started. . . . [T]here are still preliminary objections outstanding . . . about personal jurisdiction. . . . So the plaintiff is going to wait another five years on this. Because it’s going to go back. [Defendants are] not giving up the fact that they believe that Justice Alito agreed with them that the plaintiff has no business filing lawsuits in – or Pennsylvania has no business asserting jurisdiction over companies that aren’t [their] province to have jurisdiction over.
N.T. Hearing, 8/8/24, at 20 and 43-45. Further, during argument, the
Defendants asserted: “in 2021[,] when this was first filed, all [Defendants]
agreed not to contest specific jurisdiction in North Carolina. There’s no
jurisdictional problems in North Carolina.” Id. at 47-48.
On September 13, 2024, the trial court entered its order, which granted
the Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens.
Within the trial court’s accompanying opinion, the trial court concluded: 1)
trial in North Carolina would provide easier access to the sources of proof than
trial in Pennsylvania; 2) compelling process for unwilling witnesses would be
J-A18015-25
easier in North Carolina than in Pennsylvania; 3) “[Mr. Dickerson’s] general
working conditions are relevant and that a jury view of the workspace, the
ventilation, and whatever safety measures are in place, or not, would be a
reasonable defense of this case and that would be only possible in North
Carolina;” 4) “a trial in North Carolina would not only provide access to
relevant and material witnesses, it could be far more expeditious and
conceivably less costly;” 5) “there has been no evidence that a trial in
Pennsylvania could occur any earlier than in North Carolina;” 6) “North
Carolina courts and juries would have more of an interest in this case than
Pennsylvania [since] . . . Plaintiffs were residents of North Carolina, all of Mr.
Dickerson’s alleged exposure was in North Carolina, and [] all of the witnesses
with personal knowledge of his duties, work environment, and alleged
exposure as well as all of his treating physicians, are in North Carolina;” and,
7) “the vast majority of [Mr. Dickerson’s] workplace exposure to benzene was
alleged to have occurred from products and chemicals with no shown
manufacturing connection to Pennsylvania.” Trial Court Opinion, 9/13/24, at
1-17.
Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s final order
and now raises two claims to this Court:
1. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion by dismissing this case on the basis of forum non conveniens when the case had been pending for [five] years, discovery was complete, a trial date was imminent, and the [trial] court expended a great deal of resources on the matter?
J-A18015-25
2. Did the [trial] court abuse its discretion by granting a motion to dismiss to North Carolina under forum non conveniens where two cases in this Court, [Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544 (Pa. Super. 2006) and Hunter v. Shire US, Inc., 992 A.2d 891 (Pa. Super. 2010)], govern this appeal, where the public factors weigh strongly in favor of retaining this case in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia County because, inter alia, the crux of the litigation pertains to decisions by Pennsylvania manufacturers to use benzene in their products, more Defendants/Appellees are located here than in any other State, all Defendants/Appellees are alleged to conduct business here, more essential witnesses are located in or near Philadelphia, and where the private factors do not strongly weigh in favor of dismissal?
Appellant’s Brief at 3.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the relevant law, the certified
record, and the opinion of the able trial court judge, the Honorable Linda
Carpenter. We conclude that Appellant is not entitled to relief in this case, for
the reasons expressed in Judge Carpenter’s well-reasoned September 13,
2024 opinion.3 Therefore, we affirm on the basis of Judge Carpenter’s able
____________________________________________
3 We note:
Orders on motions to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. This standard applies even where jurisdictional requirements are met. Moreover, if there is any basis for the trial court's decision, the decision must stand.
An abuse of discretion occurs if, inter alia, there was an error of law or the judgment was manifestly unreasonable. When reviewing for errors of law, the appellate standard of review is de novo and the scope of review is plenary.
Hovatter v. CSX Transp., Inc., 193 A.3d 420, 424 (Pa. Super. 2018) (emphasis added).
J-A18015-25
opinion and adopt it as our own. In any future filing with this or any other
court addressing this ruling, the filing party shall attach a copy of Judge
Carpenter’s September 13, 2024 opinion.
Order affirmed. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Date: 9/8/2025
Circulated 08/1502025 Circulated 08/15/2025 02
02:48 PM
48 PM
IN IN THE COURT OF
THE COURT OF COMMON
COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COUNTY
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENSYLVANIA OF PENSYLVANIA
CIVIL TRIAL CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
DIVISION
DICKERSON, et DICKERSON, al.
et al. CASE NO. 190703709 CASE NO, 190703709
;
v. CONTROL NO.
CONTROL NO. 24064169
24064169
UNITED UNITED STATES STEEL, et
STATES STEEL, et al.
al.
ORDER ORDER
AND AND NOW,
NOW, this 13 th day
this 13" day of
of September,
September, 2024, upon consideration 2024, upon consideration of of Defendant CRC
Defendant CRC
Industries, Industries, Inc.’s
Inc.'s Motion for Reconsideration Motion for of the Reconsideration of the Court's Court’s April
April 24, 2024 Order
24, 2024 Order denying
denying
Defendants Ashland LLC, Defendants Ashland CRC Industries, LLC, CRC Industries, Inc., Inc., Union Oil Company
Union Oil Company of
of California,
California, and
and Univar
Univar
Solutions Solutions USA
USA Inc.’s Motion to
Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss based on Dismiss based onforum
forum non conveniens, and non conveniens, and the
the response
response
thereto, it thereto, it is
is hereby ORDERED that
hereby ORDERED that the
the Motion for Reconsideration Motion for Reconsideration is is GRANTED,
GRANTED, and
and
provided provided that the remaining that the remaining Defendants Defendants honor
honor their agreement not their agreement not to contest specific to contest specific jurisdiction jurisdiction
in in North Carolina, the
North Carolina, the Motion Motion to
to Dismiss based on
Dismiss based on forum
forum non
non conveniens
conveniens is GRANTED and is GRANTED and
Plaintiffs’ action is Plaintiffs' action is DISMISSED DISMISSED without
without prejudice to Plaintiffs prejudice to Plaintiffs to to refile
refile in
in North Carolina within
North Carolina within
one hundred one and twenty
hundred and twenty (120)
(120) days.
days.
II IIIIII II II 11111111111111111 19070370900610 19070370900610
COPIES SENT COPIES SENT PURSUANT PURSUANT TOP.RC.P
TO Pa.R.C.P. 236(b)
2364b) £E. HAURIN 09/13/2024 09/13/2024
IN THE COURT IN THE COURT OF
OF COMMON
COMMON PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA PLEAS OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY COUNTY
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF OF PENSYLVANIA
PENSYLVANIA
CIVIL TRIAL CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
DIVISION
DICKERSON, et al. DICKERSON, et al. : CASE NO.
CASE 190703709
NO. 190703709
v. : CONTROL NO.
CONTROL NO. 24064169
24064169
UNITED STATES STEEL, UNITED STATES STEEL, et et al.
al. :
OPINION OPINION
CARPENTER, J. CARPENTER, J. SEPTEMBER SEPTEMBER 13,2024
13, 2024
Before Before the Court is the Court Defendants’ Motion is Defendants' Motion for for Reconsideration
Reconsideration of
of the Court’s April
the Court's April 24, 2024 24, 2024
Order denying Order denying Defendants’
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss based on forum non conveniens, pursuant based on pursuant to 42 to 42
Pa. C.S.A. 8§ 5322(e)' Pa.CS.A. 5322(e). 1Upon careful consideration Upon careful consideration of of the
the arguments
arguments presented by the presented by the parties, parties, this
this
Court finds Court finds that that Defendants
Defendants have
have presented
presented sufficient
sufficient evidence
evidence that
that North Carolina is
North Carolina is aa more more
appropriate forum appropriate in this forum in case and
this case and thus,
thus, has GRANTED the
has GRANTED the Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss for
for refiling
refiling
within one hundred within one and twenty hundred and twenty (120)
(120) days
days in
in North Carolina. 2
North Carolina
Defendants’ Motion '1Defendants' Motion toto Dismiss for forum Dismiss for forum nonnon conveniens conveniens was was originally originally filed
filed March
March 8,8, 2021
2021
and Rule and Rule to Show Cause to Show Cause waswas held held April 19, 2021 . Because April 19,2021. Because of of the the uncertainty
uncertainty of of which
which
Defendants would Defendants would actually be part actually be part of any Pennsylvania of any trial, this Pennsylvania trial, Court determined this Court determined that the that the
Motion was not ripe Motion was not ripe for review until after for review until after the jurisdictional the challenges were resolved. Following jurisdictional challenges were resolved. Following the Supreme Court the Supreme Court of of the
the United States’ decision United States' decision in Mallory v.
in Mallory Norfolk S.
v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 266 Ry. Co,, 266 A.3d 542, A.3d 542,
546 546 (Pa.
(Pa. 2021), 2021), vacated
vacated and
and remanded,
remanded, 600 U.S.
U.S. 122
122 (2023),
(2023), this
this Court
Court issued
issued an
an Order
Order on
on April
April
24, 2024, 24, 2024, denying denying Defendants
Defendants Asland
Asland LLC, CRC Industries, LLC, CRC Industries, Inc., Inc., Union Oil Company Union Oil Company of of California, and California, and Univar Solutions USA Univar Solutions USA Inc.’s Inc.'s Motion
Motion to to Dismiss
Dismiss based on forum based on forum nonnon conveniens.
conveniens.
On June On June 20, 20, 2024,
2024, Defendant
Defendant CRCCRC filed
filed aa Motion
Motion for for Reconsideration Reconsideration of of that Order.
that Order
This motion ?2 This is joined motion is by Defendants joined by Defendants Exxon Mobil Corporation Exxon Mobil Corporation (Exxon (Exxon Mobil), Atlantic
Mobil), Atlantic
Richfield Company (ARCO), Richfield Company (ARCO), Henkel Henkel US Operations Corporation US Operations Corporation (incorrectly (incorrectly sued as Henkel sued as Henkel
Corporation, Corporation, Individually Individually and
and as
as Successor-in-interest
Successor-in-Interest to
to Loctite
Loctite Corporation),
Corporation), (Henkel),
(Henkel), and
and BP
BP
Products, Products, North America, Inc.
North America, (BP). Atlantie Inc. (BP). Atlantic Richfield Company ("ARCO")
Richfield Company (“ARCO”) andand BP Products BP Products
North America, North America, Inc.
Inc. were sued as
were sued as Successors-in-Interest Successors-in-Interest to Sinclair Oil, to Sinclair Oil.
FACTS FACTS OFOF THE THE CASE CASE
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs Robert Robert Dickerson
Dickerson and
and Phyllis
Phyllis Dickerson (h/w), residents Dickerson (h/w), of North residents of Carolina, North Carolina,
brought this action brought this action in in the
the Philadelphia Court of Philadelphia Court of Common Common Pleas on July
Pleas on July 29,2019,
29, 2019, alleging
alleging that
that
Mr. Dickerson Mr. Dickerson developed developed Myelodysplastic Myelodysplastic Syndrome
Syndrome (“MSD”) as the
(MSD") as the result of occupational result of occupational
exposure to exposure to benzene containing products benzene containing products during the course during the course of
of his employment in
his employment North Carolina in North Carolina
in the years in the years from from 1955
1955 to
to 2006.
2006. Plaintiffs, at all times, Plaintiffs, at times, were were residents of North
residents of Carolina and North Carolina and Mr.
Dickerson never lived Dickerson never or worked lived or worked in Pennsylvania. Defendants in Pennsylvania. are companies Defendants are companies that that manufactured,
manufactured,
sold, marketed, sold, marketed, and/or and/or distributed
distributed products containing benzene products containing benzene that that Plaintiff
Plaintiff allegedly
allegedly worked
worked
with and was with and exposed to was exposed to in the workplace.
in the workplace. Such
Such workplace exposure occurred workplace exposure occurred in in North
North
Carolina. Carolina.
Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs' original Complaint, filed original Complaint, on July filed on 29, 2019,
July 29, 2019, set
set forth claims of
forth claims negligence and of negligence and
gross negligence, gross breach of negligence, breach of warranty, strict liability, warranty, strict liability, battery, battery, fraud,
fraud, and
and loss of consortium
loss of consortium
against seventeen against seventeen (17)
(17) Defendants,
Defendants, many of which many of contested this which contested this Court's Court’s jurisdiction.
jurisdiction.'3 Because
Because
of these of these jurisdictional objections, this jurisdictional objections, this matter matter was
was delayed during the
delayed during the pendency of the pendency of the litigation in litigation in
Mallory v. Norfolk Mallory • Norfolk S.
S. Ry. Co., 266
Ry. Co., 266 A.3d
A.3d 542,
542, 546
546 (Pa.
(Pa. 202D),
2021), vacated
vacated and
and remanded, 600 U.S.
remanded, 600 U.S.
122 (2023). Of 122 (2023), Of the the original seventeen Defendants, original seventeen only three Defendants, only three were were Pennsylvania corporations -
Pennsylvania corporations -
CRC, Sunoco, CRC, Sunoco, and and United States Steel
United States Steel Corporation.
Corporation. As
As of
of the date of
the date of the instant Motion the instant Motion for
for
Reconsideration, CRC is Reconsideration, CRC is the the only remaining Pennsylvania only remaining corporate Defendant.
Pennsylvania corporate Defendant
After vacating After vacating the the April 24, 2024
April 24, Order, this 2024 Order, Court conducted this Court conducted aa Rule hearing on Rule hearing on August
August
8, 2024 on 8,2024 on the the Motion for Reconsideration.
Motion for Reconsideration, At the hearing, At the hearing, the Court was the Court was informed
informed that
that there are
there are
The litigation 'Te 3 litigation has involved several has involved several Amended Amended Complaints.
Complaints. At present, Plaintiffs'
At present, Plaintiffs’ claims claims are
are set
set
forth in forth in the the Fourth Amended Complaint, Fourth Amended Complaint, filed filed July 3, 2024,
July 3, 2024, which alleges negligence which alleges and gross negligence and gross
negligence, negligence, breach breach of
of warranty,
warranty, strict
strict liability,
liability, battery
battery and
and fraud,
fraud, wrongful
wrongful death,
death, and
and the
the
Survival Survival Act.
Act.
now four now (4) remaining four (4) remaining Defendants:
Defendants: Exxon
Exxon Mobil,
Mobil, Henkel, ARCO, and
Henkel, ARCO, and CRC.
CRC. Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs allege
allege
occupational exposure occupational exposure to to benzene
benzene contained
contained in
in Defendant CRC’s Clean-R-Carb Defendant CRC's Clean-R-Carb carburetor carburetor
cleaner and cleaner and Henkle’s Henkle's Permatex Gasket Adhesive, Permatex Gasket Adhesive. Defendants Defendants Exxon
Exxon Mobil and ARCO
Mobil and ARCO are
are
alleged to alleged to have have supplied petroleum components supplied petroleum components containing containing benzene
benzene that were used
that were in the
used in the
manufacture manufacture of CRC’s carburetor of CRC'g carburetor cleaner cleaner and
and Henkle’s adhesive.
Henkle's adhesive.
Defendants contest that Defendants contest that Mr.
Mr. Dickerson
Dickerson was ever exposed was ever exposed to
to their
their products during the products during the
course of course of his his employment
employment and
and Defendant CRC denies
Defendant CRC denies that that its carburetor cleaner its carburetor cleaner contains contains
benzene and/or that benzene and/or that it it caused Plaintiff’s illness, caused Plaintiff's illness. Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Mr. Dickerson, passed Mr. Dickerson, away on passed away on June
June
10, 2023 of 10, 2023 0f MSD.
MSD. He
He is survived by
is survived by his
his wife Phyllis Dickerson, wife Phyllis Dickerson, who is Plaintiff who is individually Plaintiff individually
and as and Administratrix of as Administratrix of her her late
late husband’s estate.
husband's estate
DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
The doctrine The doctrine of offorum as codified forum non conveniens, as codified at at 42
42 Pa.C.S.
Pa.C.S. §5322(e),
$5322(e), permits
permits aa court
court
to dismiss to dismiss aa case case when
when the
the court
court finds that "in
finds that “in the
the interest of substantial interest of substantial justice justice the
the matter
matter should
should
be heard in another heard in another forum."
forum.” Plum
Plum v.• Tampax,
Tampax, 160 A.2d 549
160 A.24 (Pa. 1960).
549 (Pa. 1960). See
See also 42 Pa.C.S.
also 42 Pa.C.S.
5322(e); Wright 5322(e); Wright.v. Consol.
Consol. Rail Corp., 215
Rail Corp., 215 A.3d 982, 990-91 A.34 982, 990-91 (Pa.Super.
(Pa.Super. 2019).
2019). Two factors are
Two factors are
considered when considered when determining determining the
the request to dismiss:
request to dismiss: 1)
I) aa plaintiffs decision about plaintiff's decision about where where to
to
institute the institute the action cannot be action cannot disturbed except be disturbed except for weighty reasons;
for weighty and 2)
reasons; and 2) an
an alternate forum
alternate forum
must exist. must exist. Plum, Plum, 160
160 A.2d
A.2d at
at 553.
553. In evaluating whether In evaluating whether “weighty”
"weighty" reasons
reasons exist, the
exist, the
Pennsylvania appellate Pennsylvania appellate courts courts have used the
have used the standard
standard set
set forth
forth in Gulf Oil
in Gulf Oil Corp.
Corp. v. Gilbert,
Gilbert, 330
330
U.S. 501 (1947) U.S. 501 (1947)(Gulf Gulf oil"),
Oil”), which evaluated "private"
which evaluated “private” and and "public"
“public” factors.
factors. Plum,
Plum, 160
160 A.2d
A.2d at
at
561. 56I Because Because the the parties
parties concede
concede that
that North Carolina is
North Carolina is an
an alternate forum, this
alternate forum, Court focuses this Court focuses on
on
the "weighty" the “weighty” reasons reasons that
that North Carolina would North Carolina would be
be aa more
more appropriate
appropriate forum
forum for the trial
for the trial than
than
Pennsylvania. Gulf Oil's Pennsylvania. Gulf Oil's statement of private statement of private factors includes the factors includes the relative ease of relative ease of access
access to
to
sources of sources of proof, availability of proof, availability of compulsory compulsory process
process for
for attendance
attendance for
for unwilling
unwilling witnesses, cost witnesses, cost
of obtaining of attendance of obtaining attendance of willing willing witnesses,
witnesses, possibility of view possibility of of premises view of (if view premises (if view would
would be
be
appropriate to appropriate to the the action),
action), and
and all other practical
all other practical problems problems that make trial of that make of aa case case easy,
easy,
expeditions, and expeditions, and inexpensive. Id. (emphasis inexpensive. Id (emphasis added). Gulf Oil's added). Gulf statement of Oil's statement of public public factors
factors
includes aa consideration includes consideration of of relative
relative administrative
administrative difficulties difficulties at
at trial,
trial, aa concem
concern that
that jurors
jurors should
should
evaluate matters evaluate of concern matters of concern to to their community, and
their community, and the
the appropriateness of the appropriateness of at-issue forum the at-issue forum
(Pennsylvania) for (Pennsylvania) for the the particular questions involved, particular questions involved, including conflict of including conflict of laws. Id. (citing laws. Id. (citing Gulf
Gulf
Oil, 330 0ill, 330 U.S.
U.S. at
at 508-09).
508-09).
This Court This Court interprets interprets Gulf
Gulf Oil's
Oil's list of factors,
list of factors, focused on sources focused on sources of
of proof
proof at
at trial and
trial and
other weighty other considerations for weighty considerations for the the trial of the
trial of action, to
the action, to be considered in be considered in totality, totality, with no one
with no one
factor factor being being determinative. This Court's determinative. This Court’s analysis analysis follows.
follows.
PRIVATE PRIVATE FACTORS FACTORS
1. f, Would Would trial
trial in
in North Carolina provide North Carolina easier access provide easier access to the sources to the sources of
of proof than
proof than
Pennsylvania? Pennsylvania?
In order to In order answer the to answer the question
question about
about access
access to
to proof for trial,
proof for trial, this
this Court
Court must
must first
first
evaluate what evaluate claims will what claims will be be likely and what
likely and evidence will what evidence will reasonably be needed reasonably be needed to
to prove, or
prove, Or
disprove, the disprove, relevant claims the relevant claims or
or defenses.
defenses. In this case,
In this case, the
the parties
parties have cited to
have cited to aa litany
litany of
of
potential potential witnesses and documents witnesses and documents that that they assert are
they assert are vital
vital to
to the
the presentation of evidence presentation of evidence at at
trial. trial. The The parties disagree as parties disagree as to
to whether access to
whether access to the evidence is the evidence is more easily obtained more easily obtained in
in North
North
Carolina or Carolina or Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania. After
After aa review
review of
of the
the purported evidence for purported evidence each party, for cach this Court party, this Court
determines that determines many of that many of the
the cited
cited sources
sources of
of evidence are not
evidence are not material to prove material to any claim prove any claim or
or
defense at defense at trial.
trial. In
In reaching
reaching this conclusion, this this conclusion, Court begins this Court with the begins with the premise that, at premise that, at its
its heart,
heart,
this case this concerns the case concerns alleged occupational/industrial the alleged exposure to occupational/industrial exposure to benzene benzene which
which Mr.
Mr. Dickerson
Dickerson
claims he claims he worked worked with on aa daily
with on daily basis in North basis in Carolina from North Carolina from 1955
1955 through
through 2006,
2006, aa period
period of
of
over 50 over 50 years.
years. During that time, During that time, Mr. Dickerson worked Mr. Dickerson worked for
for two employers -
two employers - aa Sinclair Sinclair gas
gas
station from station from 1955-1959 1955-1959 and
and Weyerhaeuser
Weyerhaeuser from July, 1965-2006.
from July, Because Mr.
1965-2006. Because Mr. Dickerson’s Dickerson's
alleged alleged exposure exposure to the remaining to the remaining Defendants’
Defendants' products
products was
was through
through his
his work,
work, warnings and
warnings and
labeling of products labeling of products to to aa retail consumer are retail consumer are not as central not as central to
to his case.
his case.
Thus, evidence as Thus, evidence as to Plaintiff’s exposure to Plaintiff's exposure in in the
the workplace is the
workplace is the primary
primary factual
factual issue
issue for
for
trial and evidence trial and evidence thereof thereof will come from
will come the testimony from the of Mr.
testimony of Mr. Dickerson, deceased, via Dickerson, deceased, via video video
deposition and deposition and Mrs.
Mrs. Dickerson. Additional trial Dickerson. Additional trial testimony would come testimony would come from from Plaintiff’s
Plaintiffs
supervisor and supervisor and co-workers co-workers and
and possibly his treating possibly his treating physicians physicians in addition to in addition experts. While to experts. While it
it is
is
unlikely that unlikely that Plaintiffs Plaintiffs or Defendants will or Defendants will bring all of bring all of the
the witnesses (co-workers and witnesses (co-workers supervisors)
and supervisors)
they have they have listed listed to testify, it
to testify, is very
it is very likely that Defendants likely that will seek Defendants will seek the
the testimony of Plaintiff’s testimony of Plaintiff's
former former supervisor at Weyerhaeuser, supervisor at Weyerhaeuser, Mr. Stephen Lawson, Mr. Stephen Lawson, who can testify who can testify with specificity as with specificity as to
to
which products which products Plaintiff was exposed Plaintiff was exposed to, and how to, and the products
how the products were used, in were used, addition to in addition to
testifying about testifying about his general working his general conditions. Defendants working conditions. argue that Defendants argue that Mr.
Mr. Lawson’s
Lawson's testimony
testimony
is critical to is critical CRC’s defense to CRC's defense and
and CRC
CRC would
would be
be severely
severely prejudiced
prejudiced if they were
if they were not
not able
able to call
to call
him at trial, him at trial, as as Mr.
Mr. Lawson’s
Lawson's testimony goes directly testimony goes directly to to the threshold issue
the threshold issue of
of whether
whether Plaintiff
Plaintiff
was was exposed exposed to CRC’s carburetor to CRC's carburetor cleaner cleaner during
during his employment at
his employment at Weyerhaeuser.
Weyerhaeuser.4 Mr.
Mr
Lawson has Lawson has testified testified that
that he
he would not voluntarily
would not come to voluntarily come to Pennsylvania Pennsylvania for
for trial.
trial.
4Mr. Dickerson Mr. Dickerson testified testified that
that he
he used CRC carburetor
used CRC carburetor cleaner cleaner forty-five
forty-five minutes to an minutes to an hour each hour each
day. day. The The testimony testimony of
of Mr.
Mr. Dickerson’s
Dickerson's supervisor, supervisor, Mr.
Mr. Lawson,
Lawson, directly
directly contradicts
contradicts that
that
testimony, making him testimony, making him aa material material witness
witness for
for the defense.
the defense
...Mr. Lawson ...Mr. Lawson testified testified that
that he
he never
never observed any operators observed any operators using carburetor cleaners using carburetor and cleaners and
that there that there was was nono reason
reason for an operator
for an operator to
to use carburetor cleaners use carburetor cleaners at at Weyerhaeuser.
Weyerhaeuser,
Additionally, Mr. Additionally, Mr. Dickerson claimed that Dickerson claimed that he he used
used CRC
CRC carburetor
carburetor cleaners
cleaners forty-five
forty-five
minutes minutes toto an an hour each day.
hour each day. Mr. Lawson confirmed Mr. Lawson confirmed that operators occasionally that operators occasionally used used
As to the As to the relative relative ease of access
ease of access to
to these sources of
these sources of proof at trial, proof at trial, based on the based on the evidence
evidence
before before it, it, this Court finds this Court that trial finds that in North trial in Carolina or North Carolina or Pennsylvania Pennsylvania would
would have no impact
have no on
impact on
the testimony of the testimony of Plaintiff Plaintiff Mr.
Mr. Dickerson because that Dickerson because that will will be
be brought
brought via
via video tape. Evidence
video tape. as
Evidence as
to to products, products, their their formulations,
formulations, and
and how
how they were marketed
they were marketed and advertised, in and advertised, addition to in addition to
evidence as evidence to exposure as to and causation exposure and causation will likely be will likely be presented
presented by expert testimony.
by expert testimony. The
The
testimony of testimony of Plaintiff's Plaintiff’s employers,
employers, supervisor,
supervisor, and
and co-workers would be
co-workers would easier in be easier in North
North Carolina
Carolina
and would and would be more difficult be more difficult in
in Pennsylvania because they Pennsylvania because they cannot cannot be compelled to
be compelled to testify if the testify if the
case remains case remains in in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania.
In addition addition to
to the above testimony
the above and evidence, testimony and evidence, the the parties will be
parties will be presenting presenting their
their
proofs proofs regarding regarding Plaintiffs Plaintiff's workplace conditions, including workplace conditions, dimensions of including dimensions of the space, industry the space, industry
standards as standards as to to ventilation and proximity, ventilation and and safety proximity, and safety measures, or lack measures, or thereof, of lack thereof, of the
the premises
premises
along with along with the evidence about the evidence about which
which products
products Plaintiff used or Plaintiff used or was exposed to was cxposed in the
to in the workplace.
workplace.
Much of this Much of this will will likely
likely be
be presented
presented by experts, however, by experts, however, there could also there could also be
be evidence
evidence presented
presented
by by Plaintiffs employer and Plaintiffs employer co-workers on and co-workers on these issues, which these issues, would be which would easier in
be easier in North Carolina.
North Carolina.
Plaintiffs argue Plaintiffs argue that that documentary
documentary evidence
evidence and
and corporate
corporate witnesses of Defendant witnesses of CRC Defendant CRC
are located are in Pennsylvania located in Pennsylvania and and these go directly
these go directly to
to pivotal
pivotal issues
issues regarding CRCs formulation, regarding CRCs formulation,
manufacture, and marketing manufacture, and of their marketing of their products as well products as well as
as internal
internal decisions
decisions regarding
regarding the safety
the safety
and warmings. and warnings. This This Court
Court has
has taken
taken these arguments into these arguments into consideration and concludes consideration and concludes that, that, while
while
this evidence this evidence is is relevant,
relevant, the
the marketing
marketing materials are not materials are not the central focus the central of this focus of case given
this case given that
that
the the relevant exposure to relevant exposure to benzene was in benzene was the industrial, in the industrial, not consumer, arena.
not consumer, arena. Moreover, Moreover, most,
most, if
if
aerosol products, aerosol products, like like WD-40, on valves,
WD-40, on but he valves, but described that he described as aa rare that as occurrence. He rare occurrence. He
surprised
further testified that he would be surprised to hear an operator operator claim to have used aerosol cleaners to cleaners to the the extent claimed by
extent claimed by Mr.
Mr. Dickerson.
Dickerson. See Defendants Defendants Ashland
Ashland LLC, CRC
LLC, CRC
Industries, Industries, Inc., Inc., Union
Union Oil Company of
Oil Company of California, California, and
and Univar
Univar Solutions
Solutions USA
USA Inc.’
Inc.'ss
March 8, March 8, 2021 2021 Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss at Paragraph
Dismiss at Paragraph 9.9.
not all, of not all, of the the CRC
CRC testimony
testimony regarding
regarding these issues is these issues is likely to be likely to be submitted through expert submitted through expert
testimony and already testimony and already videotaped corporate depositions videotaped corporate of the depositions of designated CRC the designated CRC personnel.
personnel.
Further, it is Further, it is unclear whether any unclear whether any of
of the relevant CRC
the relevant CRC designees designees are
are still
still located
located in
in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
and, at and, at the the hearing of this hearing of this matter
matter in August 2024,
in August 2024, Plaintiffs Plaintiffs pointed
pointed to
to no
no particular
particular CRC
CRC witness
witness
that that was was located located in in Pennsylvania and was
Pennsylvania and was also material to also material the trial.
to the trial. In any event, In any event, if
if aa designec
designee
were were required at trial, required at access to trial, access to that
that testimony
testimony would
would be
be no more difficult
no more difficult whether trial is whether trial is in
in
Pennsylvania or North Pennsylvania or Carolina.
North Carolina.
Again, Again, the issue in the issue this case
in this case is
is whether
whether Plaintiff
Plaintiff was ever exposed was ever to Defendants exposed to Defendants’
products, the extent products, the extent of of that
that exposure,
exposure, and,
and, if
if proved, whether that
proved, whether that exposure caused his exposure caused his injuries.
injuries.
The bulk The bulk of of the the testimonial
testimonial evidence
evidence regarding Plaintiffs exposure regarding Plaintiff's exposure and daily activities and daily activities is likely is likely
to be to be presented presented though the testimony though the of Plaintiff testimony of as well Plaintiff as as Plaintiffs well as Plaintiff's employers, employers, supervisors,
supervisors,
and coworkers. and coworkers. This This would
would be much easier
be much easier if the
the trial
trial were in North
were in Carolina.
North Carolina
A A final final probable probable source of proof
source of proof relevant to this relevant to case is
this case evidence regarding is evidence regarding damages and damages and
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs medical medical treatment.
treatment. Defendants argue that Defendants argue that Plaintiffs Plaintiffs four (4) treating four (4) physicians are treating physicians are
important important to to their case and
their case and they
they may be called
may be called to
to testify
testify if
if the trial is
the trial in North
is in Carolina. While North Carolina. While
one or one or more of Plaintiff more of Plaintiffss treating treating physicians may be physicians may called at be called at trial, especially if trial, especially if the
the case
case is
is tried
tried
in in North North Carolina, this Court Carolina, this Court finds finds it
it more
more likely that most
likely that most of
of the
the medical and causation medical and causation
testimony testimony will will be submitted and
be submitted and refuted
refuted through experts, who through experts, who will will rely on the
rely on the various medical various medical
records records that that have already been have already produced in been produced in this
this case.
case. Thus, this Court
Thus, this Court does
does not
not find that there
find that is
there is
any easier any easier access access to
to the medical evidence
the medical evidence whether trial is whether trial is in
in North Carolina or
North Carolina or in
in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
and this and this factor factor is is not part of
not part of the
the totality for the
totality for the Court.
Court.
2. Is 2. there availability Is there of compulsory availability of compulsory process process for unwilling witnesses for unwilling and the witnesses and cost of the cost of
attendance of attendance of the
the willing
willing witnesses
witnesses to
to aa Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania trial?
trial
Defendants argue that Defendants argue that witnesses critical to witnesses critical to the defense would the defense would be available to be available to testify
testify in
in
North Carolina, but North Carolina, but not be available not be available for
for trial
trial in
in Pennsylvania, and have Pennsylvania, and have included included Plaintiffs’ list of Plaintiffs' list of
witnesses that witnesses have knowledge that have knowledge of
of Mr.
Mr. Dickerson’s alleged work Dickerson's alleged exposure. Of work exposure, Of these
these witnesses,
witnesses,
Defendants argue Plaintiff’s Defendants argue Plaintiff's supervisor, Mr. Lawson, supervisor, Mr. and co-worker, Lawson, and co-worker, Jerry Jerry Stines
Stines -
- both
both with
with
actual knowledge actual of Plaintiff’s knowledge of exposure --
Plaintiff's exposure - will will likely
likely be
be called at trial
called at trial and
and their
their testimony is
testimony is
critical to critical to their their defense.
defense. Mr.
Mr. Lawson’s testimony goes Lawson's testimony goes directly directly to
to the issue of
the issue of Plaintiff’s exposure Plaintiffs exposure
and directly and directly contradicts Plaintiff’s testimony.
contradicts Plaintiffs testimony. Mr.
Mr. Lawson
Lawson has
has testified
testified that
that he is not
he is not willing
willing to
to
appear appear in in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff’s co-workers have Plaintiff's co-workers have not not indicated
indicated that
that they
they would
would voluntarily
voluntarily
appear at appear at trial trial in
in Pennsylvania. This Court Pennsylvania. This Court concludes concludes that
that the
the defense
defense has
has aa right
right to call material
to call material
live witness live witness at at trial and that
trial and compelling this that compelling material testimony this material testimony is easier in is easier in North Carolina than North Carolina than in
in
Pennsylvania. Standing alone, Pennsylvania. Standing alone, this factor is this factor is not enough to not enough to transfer,
transfer, but
but it
it is
is included
included in
in the
the
Court’s totality Court's totality analysis.
analysis.
3. 3. Is Is there
there aa possibility of view possibility of of the view of the premises,
premises, if
if view
view would be appropriate would be appropriate to this to this
action? action?
Defendants maintain Defendants that aa jury's maintain that jury’s ability ability to
to view the facilities
view the facilities would significantly enhance would significantly enhance
the the jury’s understanding of jury's understanding of Plaintiff’s working conditions, Plaintiffs working conditions, through through first-hand observation of first-hand observation the of the
dimensions of dimensions of the the workspaces,
workspaces, the
the ventilation, and the
ventilation, and safety measures the safety measures in
in place.
place. A jury view
A jury view
would would not be possible not be in Pennsylvnia.
possible in Pennsylvnia.
Plaintiffs assert that Plaintiffs assert that aa jury's jury’s view is an
view is an unnecessary
unnecessary and
and irrelevant consideration because irrelevant consideration because
Defendants Defendants have been involved have been involved in
in numerous benzene exposure numerous benzene exposure cases cases and
and have
have never
never had
had aa judge
judge
or jury or jury view view the the worksite.
worksite, In weighing this In weighing this factor,
factor, this Court determines this Court determines whether whether the
the possibility
possibility
of aa jury of jury view view of
of the
the premises
premises would
would be easier if
be easier if the
the trial were in
trial were in North Carolina rather North Carolina rather than than
Pennsylvania and whether Pennsylvania and whether that carries significant that carries significant weight.
weight. This Court finds
This Court finds that
that Plaintiff’s
Plaintiffs
general general working conditions are working conditions are relevant and that relevant and that aa jury jury view of the
view of the workspace, the ventilation, workspace, the ventilation,
and whatever and safety measures whatever safety measures are are in
in place,
place, or
or not,
not, would
would be
be aa reasonable defense of reasonable defense of this case and this case and
that would be that would only possible be only in North possible in Carolina. While North Carolina. While aa jury jury view
view is
is unlikely, and, standing unlikely, and, standing
alone, alone, would not support would not dismissal, it support dismissal, is aa factor it is that must factor that must be
be included in aa totality included in totality of of
circumstances analysis circumstances analysis.
4. What 4. other practical What other problems make practical problems make trial easy, expeditious, trial easy, expeditious, and and inexpensive
inexpensive
such that such that North Carolina or North Carolina or Pennsylvania Pennsylvania is
is a
a more
more appropriate
appropriate forum?
forum?
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs argue argue that
that to
to dismiss
dismiss this case and
this case and "start
“start over”
over" in
in North
North Carolina
Carolina would
would
not eliminate not eliminate the the need
need for Philadelphia and for Philadelphia and the
the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania courts to be courts to be actively
actively involved in the
involved in the
litigation. A North litigation. A Carolina court North Carolina court would would require
require the
the assistance of Pennsylvania assistance of and other Pennsylvania and other courts courts
to to secure documents and secure documents and testimony testimony and,
and, if
if Plaintiffs are required Plaintiffs are required to execute aa judgment to execute judgment against against
Defendant CRC, Defendant CRC, the the participation of the
participation of the Pennsylvania court would Pennsylvania court would be be necessary
necessary to
to enforce
enforce the
the
judgment; thus, judgment; thus, moving moving this case to
this case to North
North Carolina
Carolina would
would result
result in
in an even trade
an even of judicial trade of judicial
burdens. This Count burdens. This Court rejects Plaintiffs’ argument rejects Plaintiffs' argument that any material that any material evidence evidence has
has been shown to
been shown to
exist in exist in Pennsylvania. All documents, Pennsylvania. All documents, manufacturing information, and manufacturing information, and testimony have been testimony have been
produced and Plaintiffs produced and Plaintiffs have have pointed
pointed to
to no
no specific evidence that specific evidence that is is located
located in
in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania that
that
would need subpoena would need subpoena to to North Carolina. As
North Carolina. to execution As to of judgment execution of judgment concerns, all seventeen concerns, all seventeen
original original Defendants consented to Defendants consented to jurisdiction jurisdiction in North Carolina, in North Carolina, including including the
the four
four that remain.
that remain.
Moreover, three Moreover, of the three of the four
four remaining
remaining Defendants are foreign Defendants are corporations. Simply foreign corporations. Simply put, there is put, there is
no concrete evidence no concrete evidence before before this Court that
this Court the costs that the costs of
of obtaining
obtaining witnesses or executing witnesses or executing
judgment would judgment would be greater in be greater in North Carolina or North Carolina or Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania. Rather,
Rather, aa trial in North trial in Carolina
North Carolina
would not only would not only provide access to provide access to relevant and material relevant and material witnesses, witnesses, it could be
it could be far
far more
more
expeditious and expeditious and conceivably conceivably less
less costly.
costly. As
As far
far as
as the expeditiousness of the expeditiousness of trial, trial, there
there has
has been
been no
no
evidence that evidence that aa trial trial in
in Pennsylvania could occur Pennsylvania could occur any any earlier
earlier than
than in
in North Carolina given
North Carolina given that that
trial in trial this case in this case is is most
most likely
likely to
to be scheduled in
be scheduled in late
late 2025 or early
2025 or early 2026.
2026.
PUBLIC FACTORS PUBLIC FACTORS
1. I, What are the What are the relative administrative difficulties relative administrative difficulties of of trial
trial in
in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania versus
versus
North Carolina? North Carolina?
Defendants Defendants provide statistical evidence provide statistical evidence that that Philadelphia courts are Philadelphia courts are busy and that busy and that the
the
Philadelphia court docket Philadelphia court docket is is significantly
significantly busier
busier than
than that of Washington
that of County, North Washington County, Carolina.
North Carolina.
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs argue argue that
that there
there is
is no evidence of
no evidence the Philadelphia of the court being Philadelphia court being unable to provide unable to provide aa more more
expedient trial expedient and further trial and further aver
aver that the Superior
that the Superior Court
Court has greatly minimized has greatly minimized the the importance of
importance of
this factor, this factor. This This Court
Court rejects any consideration rejects any consideration that that there is any
there is any particular
particular administrative administrative
difficulty difficulty in in Philadelphia because of Philadelphia because of congestion congestion or
or other
other such
such consideration.
consideration. However, given the However, given the
jurisdictional challenges jurisdictional in this challenges in case and this case and its
its current
current case
case management schedule, trial management schedule, trial in in
Pennsylvania Pennsylvania appears appears no more expeditious no more expeditious than
than trial
trial in North Carolina.
in North Carolina.
2. 2. Are there trial Are there trial issues issues that are of
that are of concern
concern to
to Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania jurors and the jurors and the
Pennsylvania community? Pennsylvania community?
Defendants argue that Defendants argue that aa jury jury of
of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania residents would have residents would no relationship have no relationship to the to the
key aspects key aspects of of this case. Plaintiffs
this case. Plaintiffs were were residents of North
residents of Carolina, all North Carolina, all of
of Mr.
Mr. Dickerson
Dickerson'ss
alleged exposure alleged exposure was in North was in Carolina, and North Carolina, and that
that all of the
all of the witnesses
witnesses with
with personal
personal knowledge of
knowledge of
his duties, work his duties, environment, and work environment, and alleged alleged exposure
exposure as
as well as all
well as all of
of his
his treating
treating physicians, are
physicians, are
in North Carolina. in North Carolina. A A North Carolina jury,
North Carolina jury, however, however, would have aa significant would have significant interest interest in
in the
the
litigation; litigation; as such, it as such, it would be unfair would be unfair and
and inconvenient
inconvenient to ask the
to ask the citizens
citizens of
of Philadelphia
Philadelphia to
to act
act
as jurors as jurors when this case when this case has nothing to has nothing do with
to do with their community.
their community
Plaintiffs argue that Plaintiffs argue that Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Pennsylvania and Philadelphia County courts and County courts and jurors
jurors have
have the
the
greater greater interest interest in in this case because
this case because Defendant CRC is Defendant CRC is aa Pennsylvania Pennsylvania corporation
corporation that
that
manufactured manufactured its carburetor cleaner its carburetor cleaner in in Pennsylvania and placed Pennsylvania and that product placed that product into
into the
the stream of
stream of
commerce. Pennsylvania commerce, jurors and Pennsylvania jurors and Pennsylvania courts have Pennsylvania courts an interest have an interest in the manner in the manner in which
in which
Defendants conduct business. Defendants conduct Citing Wright business. Citing Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d Ince,, 905 544 (Pa.
A.2d 544 (Pa. Super.
Super.
2006). 2006)
This Court This Court acknowledges acknowledges that
that Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania, and its jurors, and its jurors, would
would have
have some interest in
some interest in
this case because this case CRC is because CRC is aa Pennsylvania corporation. However, Pennsylvania corporation. However, three of the three of the four remaining four remaining
Defendants Defendants have no real have no real connection
connection with
with manufacturing any relevant manufacturing any relevant products in Pennsylvania products in Pennsylvania
and all and all three contest jurisdiction.
three contest jurisdiction. Moreover, Moreover, the
the evidence is equivocal evidence is as to equivocal as to whether
whether Plaintiff was
Plaintiff was
ever actually ever actually exposed to aa CRC exposed to CRC product product that
that was
was manufactured in Pennsylvania.
manufactured in Pennsylvania
In In taking taking this this factor
factor into consideration in into consideration in the the totality analysis of
totality analysis of whether whether North Carolina is North Carolina is aa
more appropriate forum, more appropriate forum, this Court concludes this Court concludes that, that, because
because it
it is
is the
the alleged
alleged prolonged
prolonged
occupational exposure occupational exposure to to products
products provided
provided in the workplace in the workplace in
in North Carolina that
North Carolina is the that is the
linchpin linchpin issue issue for for trial,
trial, North Carolina courts North Carolina courts and and juries
juries would
would have
have more of an
more of an interest
interest in
in this
this
case than case than Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania.
3. Is 3. Pennsylvania an ls Pennsylvania appropriate forum an appropriate for the forum for the particular questions involved, particular questions involved, including conflict of laws? including conflictoflaws?
Defendants argue that Defendants argue that Pennsylvania has little Pennsylvania has relationship to little relationship to this case and this case and that all of that all of the
the
relevant evidence is relevant evidence is in in North Carolina. Defendants North Carolina. also assert Defendants also assert that that there are conflict
there are conflict of
of
laws laws issues issues in this case.
in this case.°5
Plaintiffs argue Plaintiffs that Defendant argue that CRC is Defendant CRC is aa Pennsylvania corporation, headquartered Pennsylvania corporation, headquartered in in
Pennsylvania, and if Pennsylvania, and if there there is
is aa conflict,
conflict, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania law should apply.
law should apply. Citing
Citing Wright
Wright v.
v. Aventis
Aventis
Pasteur, Pasteur, Inc., Ince., 905 905 A.2d 544, 548
A.2d 544, 548 (Pa.
(Pa. Super. 2006). This
Super. 2006). This Court
Court acknowledges
acknowledges that
that there
there is
is no
no
broad-brush answer to broad-brush answer to determine determine which
which law would apply
law would apply to any particular to any issue in particular issue in this case.
this case.
While Pennsylvania While certainly has Pennsylvania certainly has an an interest in its
interest in its products
products liability
liability laws applying to laws applying to
corporations corporations that are residents that are of the residents of the Commonwealth, Commonwealth, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania has no interest has no interest in
in having
having its
its
products liability laws products liability apply to laws apply the other
to the other non-resident non-resident foreign corporations that foreign corporations that allegedly exposed allegedly exposed
Plaintiff Plaintiff to benzene. Moreover, to benzene. Moreover, Pennsylvania Pennsylvania has
has no interest in
no interest in legal issues related legal issues related to
to injuries
injuries to
to
aa non-resident resulting from non-resident resulting from workplace exposures primarily workplace exposures primarily from from foreign
foreign corporations
corporations that
that
occurred in occurred in North Carolina and North Carolina and not Pennsylvania. Jessop not Pennsylvania. Jessop v.
• ACF
ACF Indus.,
Indus., LLC, 859 A.2d
LLC, 859 A.2d 801,
801,
804 (Pa. 804 (Pa. Super. 2004); Wright Super. 2004); v. Consol.
Wright v. Consol. Rail
Rail Corp,,
Corp., 215
215 A.3d
A.3d 982,
982, 996
996 (Pa.
(Pa. Super.
Super. 2019)
2019) (citing
(citing
Engstrom Engstrom v.
v. Bayer Corp., 855 Bayer Corp, 855 A.2d 52 (Pa.
A.2d 52 (Pa. Super.
Super. 2004)
2004) (imposing
(imposing jury
jury duty
duty and
and court
court costs
costs on
on
communities communities with no relation with no relation to
to the plaintiffs claim
the plaintiff's claim weighs in favor weighs in of transferring favor of transferring aa case)
case)
This Court recognizes This Court recognizes that that the instant matter
the instant matter differs differs in some respect
in some respect from
from Wright
Wright because
because
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs are alleging that are alleging that the
the injuries are related
injuries are to CRC's related to CRC’s conduct
conduct in Pennsylvania, given in Pennsylvania, given that that
Defendant Defendant CRC CRC appears
appears to have manufactured to have manufactured products in Pennsylvania.
products in Pennsylvania. However, However, the
the evidence
evidence
'5Pennsylvania Pennsylvania recognizes recognizes aa tort claim for tort claim for breach
breach ofof the
the implied
implied warranty
warranty of of merchantability, merchantability,
while in while in North Carolina such North Carolina such claim claim sounds
sounds in in contract
contract and
and not
not tort.
tort. Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania recognizes
recognizes
strict strict products products liability, liability, while
while North
North Carolina
Carolina does
does not.
not. Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania follows
follows a
a comparative
comparative
negligence approach, while negligence approach, while North North Carolina applies contributory Carolina applies contributory negligence.
negligence. See See Sikkelee Sikkelee v.
v
Precision Airmotive, Corp., Precision Airmotive, Corp., No.No. 4:07-cv-886, 4:07-c-886, 2012 2012 WLWL 12862562, 12862562, atat *3 and *2 3 and (M.D. Pa.
2 (M.D. Pa. Mar.
Mar.
13, 2012)(concluding 13, 2012(concluding that that “[u]ndeniably,
"[undeniably, the
the laws
laws of
of [North
[North Carolina
Carolina and
and Pennsylvania]
Pennsylvania] conflict conflict
in aa material in and potentially material and dispositive way”).
potentially dispositive way"). TheThe states'
states’ respective
respective approaches
approaches to to damages damages
also differ. also differ. Punitive damages are Punitive damages are limited limited inin North Carolina. N.C.G.S.
North Carolina. N.C.6.S. §$ ID—25 caps punitive ID-25 caps punitive
damages damages recoverable recoverable in
in civil
civil actions
actions to
to $250,000
$250,000 or
or three-times
three-times actual
actual damages,
damages, whichever
whichever is
is
greater. greater. See See Rhyne
Rhyne v.
• K-Mart
K-Mart Corp.,
Corp., 358
358 N.C.
N.C. 160,
160, 163—64,
163-64, 594
594 S.E.2d
S.E.24 1,
1, 5
5 (2004).
(2004).
of this of alleged exposure this alleged exposure is equivocal, particularly is equivocal, particularly because because Mr.
Mr. Dickerson’s employer, where Dickerson's employer, where the the
exposure would exposure would have have occurred, refutes that occurred, refutes that Mr.
Mr. Dickerson
Dickerson ever
ever worked
worked near
near aa CRC
CRC product.
product.
Moreover, Moreover, the the vast
vast majority of Plaintiff’s majority of Plaintiffs workplace exposure to workplace exposure to benzene benzene was alleged to
was alleged to have
have
occurred from occurred from products and chemicals products and chemicals with no shown with no shown manufacturing connection to manufacturing connection to
Pennsylvania. See Jessop Pennsylvania. Jessop v.
• ACF
ACF Indus., LLC, 859 A.2d LLC, 859 801 (Pa.
A.24 801 (Pa. Super,
Super. 2004).
2004)
Because Because this case is this case about Plaintiffs is about Plaintiff's alleged occupational exposure alleged occupational exposure to to benzene and the
benzene and the
events giving events rise to giving rise to this action arose this action arose in
in North Carolina, to
North Carolina, to residents of North residents of Carolina, and North Carolina, and all
all of
of
the evidence as the evidence as to to that
that exposure
exposure is in North
is in Carolina, this North Carolina, Court finds this Court that it
finds that it would
would be
be more
more
appropriate appropriate for for the
the trial
trial in
in this case to
this case to be in North
be in Carolina. In
North Carolina. In addition, addition, there are conflict there are conflict of
of
laws considerations. laws considerations. A A trial court does
trial court does not
not need to decide
need to decide which
which law applies in
law applies in deciding
deciding aa
Motion Motion to Dismiss for to Dismiss forum non for forum non conveniens, only only that
that there
there is
is aa conflict
conflict of
of laws
laws issue
issue and
and that
that
the conflict of the conflict of laws analysis is laws analysis is burdensome.
burdensome. See
See Bochetto v. Dimeling, Dime ling, Schreiber & Park, Park, 151
LSI
A.3d 1072, A.34 1072, 1086 (Pa. Super.
1086 (Pa. Super. 2016)
2016) (citing
(citing Engstrom
Engstrom v. Bayer Corp.,
• Bayer Corp., 855
855 A.2d
A.24 52, 57 (Pa.
52, 57 (Pa. Super.
Super.
2004) (affirming trial 2004) (affirming court's dismissal trial court's dismissal where dismissal was where dismissal was based based in
in part on the
part on the need
need to engage
to engage
in in aa conflict conflict of of laws
laws analysis).
analysis).
CONCLUSION CONCLUSION
After careful consideration After careful consideration of of the
the private and public
private and public factors in this factors in case, this this case, Court finds this Court finds that
that
the private the and public private and factors weigh public factors weigh heavily heavily for
for transfer
transfer to
to North Carolina. This
North Carolina. This is
is aa case
case of
of
alleged alleged workplace workplace exposure exposure to
to benzene
benzene that continued over that continued over aa fifty year time fifty year time period in North period in North
Carolina. Plaintiff Carolina. Plaintiff was was aa resident
resident of
of North
North Carolina
Carolina and
and never
never worked or lived
worked or in Pennsylvnia.
lived in Pennsylvnia.
It It is is not not disputed disputed that all of
that all of the
the sources
sources of
of proof,
proof, including
including Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs treating
treating physicians, cophysicians , co-
workers, and supervisors, workers, and supervisors, who can testify who can testify as to the as to the issue of exposure issue of exposure and
and to
to his injuries, are
his injuries, are in
in
North Carolina North Carolina.
Transfer of Transfer of this this case
case would eliminate the
would eliminate the jurisdictional jurisdictional objections of Defendants objections of Defendants ARCO, ARCO,
Exxon Mobil, and Exxon Mobil, and Henkle, Henkle, which
which have
have been ongoing since
been ongoing since this case was this case was filed,
filed, thus
thus making
making North
North
Carolina aa more Carolina expeditious and more expeditious and less costly forum.
less costly forum. While
While aa Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania jury
jury may
may have some
have some
interest in interest this case, in this case, the connections to the connections to Pennsylvnia are tenuous Pennsylvnia are compared to tenuous compared those with to those with North
North
Carolina. A Carolina. A North Carolina jury North Carolina jury would would have
have aa much greater interest much greater in this interest in case, as this case, as it
it involves
involves
an injury an injury which occurred over which occurred over aa period of fifty period of fifty years
years in North Carolina
in North Carolina affecting affecting citizens
citizens of
of
North Carolina. North Carolina. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania is not an
is not appropriate forum an appropriate to determine forum to determine the
the issues
issues concerning
concerning
whether Mr. whether Mr. Dickerson Dickerson was
was exposed
exposed to
to Defendants’ products in Defendants' products in North Carolina or North Carolina or to what to what
extent. Moreover, extent. Moreover, this case, with this case, with four
four remaining
remaining Defendants that all Defendants that all allegedly allegedly manufactured
manufactured
products that contain products that contain benzene, raises multiple benzene, raises conflict of multiple conflict of laws laws issues.
issues.
This Court acknowledges This Court acknowledges that that both
both Plaintiffs and Defendants Plaintiffs and Defendants have have made
made meritorious
meritorious
arguments. arguments. The The gist of Plaintiffs’
gist of argument is Plaintiffs' argument is that that Defendants’
Defendants' Motion
Motion to
to Dismiss
Dismiss is an attempt
is an attempt
to delay Plaintiffs’ to delay “day in Plaintiffs' "day court” by in court" by moving
moving the case to
the case to aa venue
venue where they perceive where they the jury perceive the jury
pool pool to be more to be more strategically advantageous. They strategically advantageous. They aver aver that
that transferring
transferring this case would this case would result
result in
in
aa “manifest injustice” to "manifest injustice" to Plaintiffs, as this Plaintiffs, as this case
case has been litigated
has been litigated for
for five years. Plaintiffs five years. Plaintiffs rely on rely on
Ficarra v. Ficarra Consol. Rail v. Consol. Corp., 242 Rail Corp., 242 A.3d
A.3d 323, 338 (Pa.
323, 338 (Pa. Super.
Super. 2020). The Ficarra 2020). The Court ruled Ficarra Court in
ruled in
favor of the favor of the denial denial of
of the
the railroad
railroad Defendants’/oram non conveniens Defendants'forum non conveniens motion motion because
because the “bulk of
the "bulk of
discovery” had discovery" had already been completed already been completed and and thus,
thus, the case was
the case was trial ready and trial ready and it
it would
would be
be aa waste
waste
of the of the Philadelphia Court’s resources, Philadelphia Court's as well resources, as as the well as the resources of the resources of the parties, parties, to dismiss the
to dismiss case.
the case.
The Court The Court reasoned reasoned that “it would
that "it be inequitable would be inequitable to dismiss the to dismiss the matter
matter when it is
when it is ready
ready for trial in
for trial in
order for it order for to begin it to begin in another jurisdiction”
in another and that jurisdiction" and “even if that "even if the case is the case is trial ready it trial ready will not
it will not be
be
tried as tried expeditiously when as expeditiously when it it begins anew in
begins anew in another
another jurisdiction."
jurisdiction. Id.
Id
While While this Court has this Court has taken
taken into consideration the into consideration the delay delay occasioned
occasioned in
in this case, Ficarra
this case, is
Ficarra s
inapposite inapposite to the procedure to the in this
procedure in this case
case because
because the case at
the case at bar
bar is
is not
not trial ready and
trial ready and the
the defense
defense
made made its its request request to to transfer
transfer well before the
well before case would the case would be considered "trial be considered “trial ready.”
ready." While
While most
most
of the of discovery with the discovery with regard to the regard to CRC product the CRC product has been completed, has been completed, under current case under current case
management deadlines, trial management deadlines, trial will will not
not be scheduled until
be scheduled until after
after June 2025. Given
June 2025. Given the current pre¬ the current pre-
trial notices trial notices in in Philadelphia,
Philadelphia, aa trial could be trial could scheduled up be scheduled to aa year up to year after
after the
the pretrial conference,
pretrial conference,
so so perhaps perhaps this case will this case will not
not be scheduled for
be scheduled for trial until the trial until the first
first half of 2026.
half of 2026. Further, because Further, because
three Defendants three Defendants continue continue to contest the
to contest appropriateness of the appropriateness jurisdiction in of jurisdiction in Pennsylvania, this Pennsylvania, this
matter matter is is still at the still at the preliminary
preliminary objection stage with objection stage with regard regard to
to those Defendants. Consequently, those Defendants. Consequently,
it it does does not appear that not appear that these these Defendants
Defendants have engaged in have cngaged in discovery discovery because
because of
of the
the existing
existing
jurisdictional challenges. jurisdictional challenges.
Plaintiffs Plaintiffs further further argue
argue that
that Defendant CRC is
Defendant CRC is aa Pennsylvania corporation, headquartered Pennsylvania corporation, headquartered
in Pennsylvania, in and that Pennsylvania, and that the evidence and the evidence and witnesses witnesses as to the
as to the formulation
formulation and manufacture of and manufacture of
their carburetor cleaner their carburetor cleaner was was in
in Pennsylvania. This Court Pennsylvania. This Court has included this has included this factor in its factor in analysis
its analysis
of the of the totality of circumstances totality of circumstances and this factor, and this standing alone, factor, standing alone, would would lean
lean in
in favor
favor of
of trial
trial m
in
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania. However, no factor However, no factor stands stands alone
alone and
and must
must be
be weighed
weighed with all the
with all other factors the other factors
set set forth forth in in Plum.
Plum. Plaintiffs’ claims of Plaintiffs' claims of injury at trial injury at do not
trial do not result
result solely
solely from
from Defendant CRC’s
Defendant CRC's
carburetor cleaner, carburetor cleaner, but but also
also from the Henkel
from the adhesive, which Henkel adhesive, which has has no connection to
no connection to Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania
Further, Further, Defendant CRC has Defendant CRC has evidence evidence that
that Plaintiff did not
Plaintiff did not work in an work in an area
area in
in which
which he
he would
would
have been have been exposed exposed to
to the CRC product
the CRC product that
that was manufactured in
was manufactured in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania. To the extent To the extent
that that proof proof of of the
the manufacture of the
manufacture of the carburetor carburetor cleaner
cleaner is
is necessary
necessary at
at trial,
trial, no
no sources of proof
sources of proof
have been have been shown shown to
to be
be obtained in Pennsylvania, obtained in Pennsylvania, given that most given that of this
most of this testimony
testimony will be
will be
provided provided through through experts experts who
who will
will rely
rely on
on the documentary evidence the documentary evidence already already produced or other produced or other
evidence that evidence that is as easily is as easily obtained
obtained in
in North Carolina as
North Carolina as in
in Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania.
This Court This Court has has evaluated
evaluated both
both parties’ submissions and parties' submissions and has has made
made findings and
findings and
conclusions that conclusions that weighty reasons exist weighty reasons exist such such that
that North Carolina is
North Carolina is aa more more appropriate
appropriate forum
forum than
than
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania.
BYT
Dickerson, P. v. United States Steel Corp. (Dickerson, P. v. United States Steel Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.