Rahn v. Consol. Rail Corp.

254 A.3d 738

Paul RAHN, Appellant

v.CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION

No. 3500 EDA 2019

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued March 10, 2021

Filed: April 29, 2021

Thomas J. Joyce III, Conshohocken, for appellant.

Evan M. Tager, Washington DC, for appellee.

BEFORE: OLSON, J., NICHOLS, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E.^*

OPINION BY STEVENS, P.J.E.:

Appellant Paul Rahn ("Mr. Rahn") appeals from the order granting the motion filed by Consolidated Rail Corporation ("Consolidated Rail") to dismiss Mr. Rahn's complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens , for re-filing in a more appropriate forum. After careful review, we affirm.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows: Mr. Rahn is a non-resident of Pennsylvania and currently lives in Chicago, Illinois. He instituted this action pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA)¹ against Consolidated Rail, which is incorporated in Pennsylvania with a principal place of business in Philadelphia. Mr. Rahn averred Consolidated Rail also conducts business in and has substantial contacts with Philadelphia. He also specifically claimed that Consolidated Rail is "engaged in interstate commerce as a common carrier by rail, operating a line and system of railroads and transacting substantial business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia County."² Mr. Rahn's Amended Complaint, filed 4/11/2018 (unpaginated).³

Mr. Rahn averred in his amended complaint that, from 1978 to 1996, he was employed by Consolidated Rail as a trainmaster at rail yards in Chicago, IL, Indianapolis, IN, Burns Harbor, IN, Detroit, MI, Kalamazoo, MI, Dearborn, MI, Cleveland, OH, Columbus, OH, and Youngstown, OH. Id . He further claimed that, because of his job duties, he was exposed to cancer-causing substances, which resulted in his development of lymphoma. Id . He posited that Consolidated Rail was negligent in failing to provide him with a reasonably safe workplace as required under the relevant statute. Id .

Mr. Rahn also stated in his amended complaint that he worked for Consolidated Rail as a trainmaster at rail yards in Philadelphia, PA. Id . He subsequently averred in discovery that "his cancer was caused or contributed from his exposure to toxic substances while working with [Consolidated Rail] in Philadelphia." Responses to Consolidated Rail's Request for Admissions (unpaginated). However, in his April 23, 2019 deposition taken in Illinois, Mr. Rahn admitted that, while he worked for Consolidated Rail in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh near the end of his career, he was not exposed to harmful substances during this time period in which he worked a desk job. Mr. Rahn's Deposition, 4/23/19, 147, 172-79.

On July 22, 2019, Consolidated Rail filed a motion to dismiss under 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(e) and the doctrine of forum non conveniens . In support of its motion, Consolidated Rail attached Mr. Rahn's deposition testimony, his answers to Consolidated Rail's First Set of Interrogatories, and his answers to Consolidated Rail's Request for Admissions. Consolidated Rail also attached an affidavit from Lauren Lamp, Field Investigations Specialist for CSX Transportation.⁴

Relevantly, in the motion to dismiss, Consolidated Rail emphasized that Mr. Rahn resides in Chicago, Illinois, where he has lived for the majority of his life. Consolidated Rail's Motion to Dismiss, filed 7/22/19, at 2, 6. Consolidated Rail stressed that while Mr. Rahn initially claimed that he was exposed to harmful substances while working for Consolidated Rail in Philadelphia, Mr. Rahn eventually conceded that his alleged workplace exposures occurred outside of Pennsylvania in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Id . at 2, 15.

As such, Consolidated Rail asserted that all of the relevant witnesses and sources of proof to Mr. Rahn's claims are located outside of Pennsylvania. Consolidated Rail pointed out that Mr. Rahn admitted in his deposition that he will not be able to travel to Philadelphia for trial due to an ailment in his legs and vertigo. Id . at 2, 14. In fact, Consolidated Rail pointed out that Mr. Rahn's deposition had to be taken in Illinois as he could not travel to Pennsylvania as a result of his health.

Consolidated Rail pointed out that Mr. Rahn was neither diagnosed or treated for his lymphoma in Pennsylvania, and thus, Consolidated Rail provided the names of his seven diagnosing and treating physicians, all of whom are located in Illinois. Id . at 9.

Consolidated Rail claimed Mr. Rahn had not identified any co-workers or supervisors located in Pennsylvania with information about the conditions in which Rahn worked in which he was allegedly exposed to toxic substances. Id . at 15-16. While Mr. Rahn identified three individuals who he worked with in Pennsylvania, Consolidated Rail argued that these individuals would have no knowledge relevant to Mr. Rahn's claims as he admits that his exposure did not occur while he worked in Pennsylvania at a desk job. Id .

Moreover, Consolidated Rail indicated that the witnesses Mr. Rahn identified that could potentially have knowledge relevant to his claims do not reside in Pennsylvania. Consolidated Rail pointed to Ms. Lamp's affidavit acknowledging that Mr. Rahn worked with several co-workers and supervisors in the locations outside of Pennsylvania where he alleges he was exposed to toxic substances; these coworkers included K. Jensen, L. Schmidt, L. Makowski, R.J. Rathje, and D. Rines. Id . at 15. Ms. Lamp determined that Consolidated Rail's records indicated that none of these witnesses lived in Pennsylvania but had the following last known addresses: K. Jensen (Burbank, Illinois), L. Schmidt (Valparaiso, Indiana), L. Makowski (Cheektowago, New York), R.J. Rathje (East Liverpool, Ohio), and D. Rines (Grand Blanc, Michigan), Ms. Lamp indicated that any yet-to-be-identified co-workers and supervisors of Mr. Rahn would not be expected to have worked, been based in or lived in Pennsylvania.

Ms. Lamp also averred that Mr. Rahn's personnel file with Consolidated Rail is not housed in Pennsylvania as many of Consolidated Rail's records were transferred to CSX Transportation, which is headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, and microfilms of Consolidated Rail's personnel files are stored in Mount Laurel, New Jersey. See supra note 2.

Consolidated Rail contended that holding this litigation in Philadelphia would prevent the parties from showing the jury the condition of the railyards outside of Pennsylvania where Mr. Rahn worked and was allegedly exposed to toxic substances. Consolidated Rail argued that a site visit to a rail yard in Illinois would "allow a jury to see the openness of the environment in which [Mr. Rahn] alleges exposures and how his worksites markedly differ from [Mr. Rahn's] own account." Consolidated Rail's Motion to Dismiss, filed 7/22/19, at 18.

Consolidated Rail also argued that public interest factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal of the instant case as Philadelphia County is suffering from court congestion, administrative difficulties, and an undue burden on juries due to an exponential increase in the filing of mass tort cases by out-of-state plaintiffs. Id . at 22-23.

Based on the aforementioned arguments, Consolidated Rail averred the instant action has no bona fide connection to Pennsylvania, and dismissal of the action is proper since there is a more convenient forum where litigation could be conducted more easily, expeditiously, and inexpensively. Additionally, Consolidated Rail reasoned the only connection between Pennsylvania and the instant matter is that Consolidated Rail has its headquarters in Pennsylvania. However, Consolidated Rail argued this connection is unrelated to Mr. Rahn's claim that he suffered injury in connection with his employment in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio.

Moreover, Consolidated Rail agreed to waive the statute of limitations if Mr. Rahn re-filed his action in Cook County, Illinois, or another appropriate venue, within ninety days of the dismissal of the suit in Philadelphia, and agreed not to object on the basis of venue or personal jurisdiction if the matter was re-filed in Cook County, Illinois, or some other proper forum.

On August 12, 2019, Mr. Rahn filed a response in opposition to Consolidated Rail's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens , as well as a supporting memorandum. Therein, Mr. Rahn admitted he did not live, own property, or receive medical treatment in Pennsylvania. While Mr. Rahn indicated in his prior deposition that he did not believe he could travel to Philadelphia due to health problems, he indicated that he intends to attend trial in this matter even though his "ailments make travel difficult." Mr. Rahn's Response to Consolidated Rail's Motion to Dismiss, filed 8/12/19, ¶ 1(b) (unpaginated response).

Moreover, Mr. Rahn admitted that he was injured in relation to workplace exposure that occurred outside of Pennsylvania and agreed that his former co-workers and supervisors do not reside in Pennsylvania. However, Mr. Rahn denied that all of his fact witnesses are located outside of Pennsylvania. Specifically, he indicated:

[Mr. Rahn] intends to call four former [Consolidated Rail] employees who worked in the Philadelphia headquarters. [Mr. Rahn] intends to call Marcia Comstock (medical director, resides in Wayne, PA), William Barringer (safety director), Ramon Thomas (industrial hygienist), and Paul Kovac (occupational claims manager). Mr. Thomas and Mr. Kovac also reside in the Philadelphia area.

Id . ¶ 1(d) (unpaginated response). Mr. Rahn elaborated that he intended to call the four former corporate witnesses because they "will testify to policies crafted and implemented by [Consolidated Rail]." Id. ¶ 37, 130. Moreover, Mr. Rahn claimed that Consolidated Rail's "corporate headquarters is the center of where policy decisions were made and implemented regarding safety rules and regulations that directly led to ...