MICHELLE ZAPPALA v. THE JAMES LEWIS GROUP t/a BRANDOLINI COMPANIES, JAMES LEWIS CORPORATION, PROGRESS BANK, THE PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK t/a PEP BOY

MICHELLE ZAPPALA v. THE JAMES LEWIS GROUP t/a BRANDOLINI COMPANIES, JAMES LEWIS CORPORATION, PROGRESS BANK, THE PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK t/a PEP BOYS MICHELLE ZAPPALA v. BRANDOLINI PROPERTY MANAGEMENT INC., PAOLI SHOPPING CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PAOLI SHOPPING CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP PHASE II, UNITED BUILDERS & ONSTRUCTORS, LTD., KORTAN GENERAL MAINTENANCE, INC., THE JAMES LEWIS GROUP t/a BRANDOLINI COMPANIES, JAMES LEWIS CORPORATION, PROGRESS BANK, THE PEP BOYS-MANNY, MOE & JACK t/a BRUBACHER EXCAVATING, INC., GREEN DESIGN, INC., CARROLL CONTRACTORS, INC., PICKERING VALLEY LANDSCAPE, INC., BALA ELECTRIC, HEYSER LANDSCAPING, INC., PAOLI SHOPPING CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II No. 313 EDA 2008 2009 PA Super 179 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 9/11/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered October 2, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No. August Term, 2000 – No. 00151 and October Term, 2000 – No. 03857
Before: PANELLA, DONOHUE and COLVILLE, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Appellant Michelle Zappala (“Zappala”) appeals from the trial court’s order entered October 2, 2007 granting Appellees’ motion pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006(d)(1) to transfer this civil case from Philadelphia County to Chester County based upon forum non conveniens. As we discuss in detail, the case before us was remanded to the trial court by our Supreme Court and the forum non conveniens motion at issue is the Chester County Defendants’ second attempt to have this case transferred from Philadelphia to Chester County. On remand, Zappala, the Chester County Defendants, and the trial court each interpreted differently the teaching of our Supreme Court’s opinion in Zappala v. Brandolini Property Management, Inc., 589 Pa. 516, 909 A.2d 1272 (2006) (“Zappala I”). While we are in general agreement with the analysis employed by the learned trial judge, The Honorable Arnold L. New, we reverse because of a lack of an evidentiary record to support the trial court’s findings.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here