Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-1820 KUWAIT & GULF LINK TRANSPORT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF COMPANY, KGL LOGISTICS, and : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KGL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY : KSCC, : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : JOHN DOE (a.k.a. Scott Wilson), : No. 2012-1820 Civil Term AGILITY PUBLIC WAREHOUSING : COMPANY K.S.C. (a.k.a. Agility, f.k.a. : The Public Warehousing Company), : AGILITY DGS LOGISTICS SERVICES : COMPANY K.S.C.C. (f.k.a. PWC Logistic : Services Company K.S.C.C.), PWC : TRANSPORT COMPANY W.L.L., : AGILITY DGS HOLDINGS, INC. (f.k.a. : Agility Defense & Government Services, : Inc.), AGILITY DEFENSE & : GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. (f.k.a. : Taos Industries, Inc.), AGILITY : INTERNATIONAL, INC., : Defendants. : IN RE: PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS OF DEFENDANTS AGILITY DGS HOLDINGS, INC., AGILITY DEFENSE & GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., AND AGILITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. BEFORE HESS, P.J. OPINION and ORDER Before the court is a Petition to Transfer Venue for Forum Non Conveniens filed by Defendants Agility DGS Holdings, Inc., Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc., and Agility International, Inc. (Petition to Transfer Venue for Forum Non Conveniens of Defendants Agility DGS Holdings, Inc., Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc., and Agility International, Inc., filed May 15, 2012 (hereinafter “Petition to Transfer Venue, ¶ __”)). Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint was filed in Cumberland County and arises out of a dispute between two Kuwaiti companies regarding e-mails and/or letters allegedly sent by or on behalf of Defendants to United States government contracting officials within Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which are alleged to have falsely accused Defendants of, inter alia, engaging in business activities with sanctioned Iranian entities in violation of federal law. (Amended Complaint, filed Jun. 14, 2012). Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(e), Defendants have filed the instant Petition to Transfer Venue For Forum Non Conveniens contending that the private and public factors bearing on this case weigh heavily in favor of what would result in the dismissal of the underlying action in order to permit the parties to resolve the dispute in Kuwait. For the reasons that follow, Defendants’ petition will be denied. The facts of this case are lengthy, and we need not recite herein the many intricacies of this potentially complex litigation. Those relevant to the disposition of the instant petition may be summarized as follows: Plaintiff Kuwait & Gulf Link Transport Company (hereinafter “KGL” or “KGL Transport”) is a Kuwaiti company with a principal place of business in Safat, Kuwait, and is the parent corporation of KGL Holding, a wholly-owned subsidiary which operates companies involved in the provision of logistics, warehousing, transportation, shipping, port management, and stevedoring services. (Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 7-8). KGL Holding owns a 43% interest in Plaintiff KGL Logistics, a publicly traded company on the Kuwaiti Stock Exchange with a principal place of business in Kuwait. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 8). Additionally, KGL Holding owns a 100% interest in Plaintiff KGL Transportation Company, a Kuwaiti company engaged in the provision of transportation equipment and services. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 9). As a group, Plaintiff KGL and its operating subsidiaries are involved in, inter 2 alia, the business of contracting with the United States government to perform work to be done in Kuwait and Southwest Asia. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 10). Defendant John Doe (a.k.a. “Scott Wilson”) is an unknown individual who, as explained in greater detail below, is alleged to have made false, misleading, and defamatory statements to United States government contracting officials located in Cumberland County and elsewhere regarding Plaintiff KGL and its relationship with sanctioned Iranian entities. (Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 11-15). Defendant Agility Public Warehousing Company K.S.C. (a.k.a. Agility, f.k.a. The Public Warehousing Company) (hereinafter “PWC”) is a Kuwaiti logistics company headquartered in Kuwait and is engaged in the business of contracting with the United States government. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 17). According to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, Defendant PWC is the parent corporation of a number of subsidiaries and chains of subsidiaries, best delineated as follows: Defendant PWC Transport Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant PWC and is engaged in the provision of logistics-type services. (Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 17, 19). Defendant Agility DGS Logistics Services Company (hereinafter “Agility Logistics”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant PWC and is likewise a Kuwaiti logistics company with offices in Kuwait. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 18). Defendant Agility DGS Holdings, Inc. is wholly-owned by Defendant Agility Logistics and is incorporated in the state of Delaware with an office in Virginia. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 20). Defendant Agility Defense & Government Services Inc. (hereinafter “Agility DGS”) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant Agility Holdings and is incorporated in Delaware with offices in Alabama and Virginia. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 21). Lastly, Defendant Agility International Inc. is a wholly- 3 owned subsidiary of Defendant Agility DGS and is incorporated in Delaware with offices in California, Connecticut, and Virginia. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 22). At the heart of the underlying dispute are two e-mails and/or letters which are alleged to have been sent by an unknown “Scott Wilson” either on behalf of or at the direction of Defendant PWC to the contracting officer at the Defense Logistics Agency (“DLA”) Distribution Center in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania, as well as the United States Army Sustainment Command and the Government Accountability Office. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 48) (Answer to Petition to Transfer Venue for Forum Non Conveniens of Defendants Agility DGS Holdings, Inc., Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc., and Agility International, Inc., ¶ 2 (hereinafter “Answer to Petition, ¶ __”)). Although the e-mails and/or letters were received in Cumberland County, the communications were alleged to have originated from a computer system and IP address registered to Defendant PWC in Kuwait. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 55) (Answer to Petition, ¶¶ 4, 17). These communications, known as the “Wilson Letters,” are alleged to have falsely accused Plaintiffs of violating United States sanctions laws by asserting, inter alia, that Plaintiffs had maintained ongoing business relationships with Iranian companies in violation of federal law. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 50) (Answer to Petition, ¶ 2). Moreover, the “Wilson Letters” are alleged to have falsely accused Plaintiffs of intentionally making false statements and misrepresentations to U.S. government officials regarding the nature of Plaintiffs’ relationship with various Iranian entities. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 58) (Answer to Petition, ¶ 2). Plaintiffs contend that the “Wilson Letters” were sent to the Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Center in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania in an attempt to prevent the DLA contracting office from awarding and/or allowing Plaintiff KGL to perform a specific multi- 4 million dollar warehousing contract which was, at that time, being performed by Defendants (Answer to Petition, ¶ 2); in an attempt to interfere with contracts awarded or to be awarded in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania by urging the DLA contracting office to disqualify Plaintiffs from any existing United States contract awards and to bar Plaintiffs from any future awards (Answer to Petition, ¶ 18); and in a general attempt or “scheme” to defame Plaintiffs in the eyes of the recipient government contracting officers located in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. (Answer to Petition, ¶ 5). Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint and, subsequent to the filing of preliminary objections, an Amended Complaint setting forth the following claims: at Count I, a claim of defamation against John Doe (a.k.a. “Scott Wilson”); at Count II, a claim of tortious interference with contractual and other business relationships against John Doe (a.k.a. “Scott Wilson”); at Count III, a claim for “respondeat superior” against Defendants PWC, Agility Logistics, PWC Transport, and the Agility companies; at Count IV, a claim of conspiracy against John Doe (a.k.a. “Scott Wilson”) and Defendants PWC, Agility Logistics, PWC Transport, and the Agility companies; at Count V, a claim for “aiding and abetting” against John Doe (a.k.a. “Scott Wilson”) and Defendants PWC, Agility Logistics, PWC Transport, and the Agility companies; and at Count VI, in the alternative, a claim of negligent supervision against Defendants PWC, Agility Logistics, PWC Transport, and the Agility companies. (Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 165-205). Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(e), Defendants have filed the instant Petition to Transfer Venue For Forum Non Conveniens contending that the private and public factors bearing on this case weigh heavily in favor of the dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint in order to permit 5 the parties to resolve the dispute in Kuwait. Specifically, Defendants contend that the following private interest factors point towards dismissal: because the parties, including an unknown John Doe, a.k.a. “Scott Wilson,” as well as the “sources of proof” are primarily located in Kuwait; because this court “lacks suitable compulsory process;” because the cost to obtain the attendance of willing witnesses would be “unreasonable;” and because of perceived practical problems which may arise by engaging in litigation in Cumberland County, such as the need for translation services and nonimmigrant visas. In addition, Defendants contend that the financial and logistical burdens placed upon local taxpayers, jurors, and this court, as well as a “choice of law burden,” are public interest factors which additionally tip the scales in favor of dismissal in order for the parties to litigate the underlying dispute in the courts of Kuwait. Conversely, Plaintiffs assert that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and, specifically, Cumberland County, is a proper forum for the underlying dispute because the alleged tortious conduct of Defendants was directed towards Cumberland County, resulting in harm caused here; because “[m]ost of the witnesses and evidence are in the United States,” including United States government contracting officials located in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania; because the harm to Defendants’ reputation was occasioned in Pennsylvania; and because Defendants have not established that Kuwait is a more convenient forum, as there are likely to be logistical problems in any international litigation. As to the public factors at bear, Plaintiffs contend: that the complexities of international litigation as set forth by Defendants are simply unavoidable realities that would exist wherever the underlying dispute is litigated; that the government contracting process was affected in Pennsylvania; that no tort is alleged to have occurred in Kuwait; and Kuwait has no governmental interest in resolving this “U.S.-centric dispute.” For these reasons, Plaintiffs 6 argue that there is a strong public interest in litigating the underlying dispute in the courts of the Commonwealth. The doctrine of forum non conveniens has been codified at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(e), which provides as follows: (e) Inconvenient Forum.- When a tribunal finds that in the interest of substantial justice the matter should be heard in another forum, the tribunal may stay or dismiss the matter in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(e); Cinousis v. Heckinger Dep’t Store, 406 Pa.Super. 500, 501, 594 A.2d 731 (1991). “Forum non conveniens permits a court, exercising its discretion, to refuse to entertain a case even if jurisdictional requirements are met. Since the decision to dismiss is discretionary with the trial court, it is reversible only as an abuse of discretion.” Cinousis, 406 Pa.Super. at 501, 594 A.2d at 731 (quoting Beatrice Foods Co. v. Proctor and Schwartz, Inc., 309 Pa.Super. 351, 359, 455 A.2d 646, 650 (1982)). The result obtained by the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine as codified in Section 5322(e) differs materially from that attained by the application of the doctrine by way of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(d); specifically, Rule 1006(d)(1) enables the court to transfer an action to another county within the Commonwealth “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses,” thereby leaving the litigation intact, whereas a Section 5322(e) dismissal, on the other hand, terminates the litigation in the courts of this Commonwealth. Pa.R.Civ.P. 1006(d)(1); Alford v. Philadelphia Coca-Cola Bottling Co., Inc., 366 Pa.Super. 510, 512-13, 531 A.2d 792, 793-94 (1987). Thus, unlike the intra-jurisdiction transfer obtained by way of Rule 1006(d), Section 5322(e) applies when a tribunal of the Commonwealth determines that a tribunal in another jurisdiction would offer a more convenient and appropriate situs for the 7 action. Id. Because courts of the Commonwealth lack the authority to transfer cases to courts of our sister states, and, a fortiori, to courts of another country, dismissal of the action under Section 5322(e) is the only permissible result. Id. The doctrine of forum non conveniens “provides the court with a means of looking beyond technical considerations such as jurisdiction and venue to determine whether litigation in the plaintiff’s chosen forum would serve the interests of justice under the particular circumstances.” Alford, 366 Pa.Super. at 513, 531 A.2d at 794. In making the determination of whether or not to dismiss an action on the basis of forum non conveniens by way of Section 5322(e), a reviewing court is to employ a “private and public factors test,” with the two most important factors being “(1) [that] a plaintiff’s choice of the place of suit will not be disturbed except for weighty reasons, and (2) no action will be dismissed unless an alternative forum is available to the plaintiff.” Poley v. Delmarva Power and Light Co., 2001 PA Super 182, ¶ 4, 779 A.2d 544, 546 (quoting Beatrice, 309 Pa.Super. at 359, 455 A.2d at 650); Humes v. Eckerd Corp., 807 A.2d 290, 294 (Pa.Super.Ct. 2002). The remaining factors are best grouped “under the two principal interests involved: those of the parties and those of the public.” Cinousis, 406 Pa.Super. at 502, 594 A.2d at 732. In considering the relevant factors of the analysis to determine whether such “weighty reasons” exist as would overcome the plaintiff’s choice of forum, our Supreme Court has adopted the following as set forth by Mr. Justice Jackson in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843 (1947), and in the Comment to Section 117(e) of the Restatement, Second, Conflict of Laws: ‘If the combination and weight of factors requisite to given results are difficult to forecast or state, those to be considered are not difficult to name. An interest to be considered, and one likely to be most pressed, is the private interest of the litigant. Important considerations are the relative ease of access to sources of 8 proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. There may also be questions as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained. The court will weigh relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial. * * *’ ‘Factors of public interest also have place in applying the doctrine. Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial . . . in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in the law foreign to itself.’ ‘These two sets of factors are not mutually exclusive but rather supplement each other.’ Cinousis, 406 Pa.Super. at 503, 594 A.2d at 732 (quoting Plum v. Tampax, Inc., 399 Pa. 553, 561-62, 160 A.2d 549, 553 (1960)); Engstrom v. Bayer Corp., 2004 PA Super 223, ¶¶ 8-11, 855 A.2d 52, 55-56; Petty v. Suburban General Hospital, 363 Pa.Super. 277, 281-82, 525 A.2d 1230, 1232 (1987). Although a foreign plaintiff’s selection of a forum other than its home militates against the otherwise strong presumption in favor of a plaintiff’s choice, see Aerospace Finance Leasing, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 696 A.2d 810, 814 (Pa.Super.Ct. 1997), the aforementioned factors and elements are to be balanced and, “unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.” Shears v. Rigley, 424 Pa.Super. 559, 565, 623 A.2d 821, 824 (1993) (internal citations omitted). Applying these factors to the action before us, we are compelled to conclude that jurisdiction is properly retained in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and, specifically, in Cumberland County. Turning first to the private interest factors of the parties, we note that although certain sources of proof, such as forensic computer evidence, depositions, and 9 testimony of Defendants’ employees, are located in Kuwait and elsewhere, the burden of obtaining this evidence falls upon Plaintiffs, who have clearly undertaken it and its accompanying costs by filing the underlying action in this Commonwealth. Additionally, it is to be noted that not all relevant and discoverable evidence in this case is to be found in Kuwait; rather, the “Wilson Letters” were emailed to the Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Center in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania; the government contracting officials as intended recipients of the letters are located in Cumberland County; and whatever injury to Plaintiffs’ reputation which may have resulted from the letters’ publication was occasioned in Pennsylvania. The international nature of this case will no doubt involve greater discovery efforts than those typically called for in other cases. We are unconvinced, however, that these same efforts would not be needed were the parties to litigate the dispute in Kuwait. In examining other private interest factors, it is also necessary to consider the availability of compulsory process for attendance of an unwilling witness or to compel discovery of evidence if a party is less than forthcoming. On reflection, we believe that much of the evidence and testimony in this case is likely to come from sources already under the parties’ control. For example, it is alleged that the “Wilson Letters” originated from a computer system and IP address registered to Defendant PWC in Kuwait and were sent by one or more employees or agents of Defendants. We are satisfied with our ability to enforce compulsory process over party-controlled, discoverable evidence. Additionally, this court retains the authority to compel the appearance of witnesses located within the Commonwealth, something which the Kuwaiti court would find far more difficult to do. 10 Defendants also assert that the cost of obtaining the attendance of even willing witnesses is so great as to place an “unreasonable” burden on the parties and that various “practical problems” are likely to arise with continued litigation of this action in Cumberland County. We believe, however, that these logistical problems are inherent in the context of an international dispute no matter the location of the forum in which the matter is litigated. Regardless of where the case is tried, witnesses are going to have to travel, documents are going to have to be sent, and relevant evidence is going to have to move between one country and another. As to the issue of translation services, that challenge has thus far failed to present itself, and, if one day it becomes a matter of concern, it is hardly insurmountable. In any event, we note that the “Wilson Letters” and accompanying attachments to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint were written entirely in English. Ironically, were the action tried in Kuwait, translation services would be required to convert the “Wilson Letters,” which are at the heart of the dispute, into Arabic. Quite simply, we have difficulty in finding that Kuwait, rather than Pennsylvania, will provide a more convenient forum in which the parties may litigate their dispute. We next turn to address the public interest factors which must be considered in a forum non conveniens analysis. Although the parties are not residents of Pennsylvania, thus weakening the strength of the presumption typically afforded to a plaintiff’s choice of forum, we find to be significant the fact that the allegations and conduct alleged in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint were specifically directed towards this Commonwealth. At its core, this case involves the publication of allegedly fraudulent and defamatory statements which were directed toward the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and which were intended to have an effect in Pennsylvania. Whatever may have resulted elsewhere in the world as a result of the publication of the letters at 11 issue, the intended and stated purpose of those communications was to cause a reaction and disruption at the DLA Distribution Center in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. We believe there to exist a substantial and weighty public interest in the oversight of litigation which directly involves members of this community. With regard to the issue of conflict of law, after review, we are convinced of the propriety of employing Pennsylvania law in the resolution of the underlying dispute. Initially, we note that a choice-of-law analysis is only applicable to conflicts of substantive law; thus, if an issue is procedural, Pennsylvania law will govern. Marlette v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2010 PA Super 227, 10 A.3d 347, 351 (citing Ferraro v. McCarthy-Pascuzzo, 2001 PA Super 156, ¶ 22, 777 A.2d 1128, 1137 (“Whenever Pennsylvania is the chosen forum state for a civil action, our state’s procedural rules i.e. the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure govern, no matter what substantive law our courts must apply in resolving the underlying legal issues.”)). As described by our Superior Court, “[s]ubstantive law is the portion of the law which creates the rights and duties of the parties to a judicial proceeding, whereas procedural law is the set of rules which prescribe the steps by which the parties may have their respective rights and duties judicially enforced.” Wilson v. Transport Ins. Co., 2005 PA Super 401, ¶ 12, 889 A.2d 563, 571 (internal citations omitted). Here, the forum non conveniens analysis raises an issue of the application of substantive law. At its core, the parties disagree as to whether Pennsylvania or Kuwaiti law will apply to the causes of action contained in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. Hence, application of the choice-of-law analysis is called for here. In Pennsylvania, a court engaged in a choice-of-law analysis must first determine whether the laws of the competing jurisdiction actually conflict with those of the forum state. 12 Wilson, 2005 PA Super 401, ¶ 11, 889 A.2d at 570-71 (quoting Ratti v. Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp., 758 A.2d 695, 702 (Pa.Super.Ct. 2000)). If no conflict exists, or where the application of the laws of the two jurisdictions would produce the same result on the particular issue presented, no true conflict exists and further analysis is unnecessary. Id.; see also Cipolla v. Shaposka, 439 Pa. 563, 267 A.2d 854 (1970). In that case, Pennsylvania law is to be applied. Carbis Walker, LLP v. Hill, Barth and King, LLC, 2007 PA Super 221, ¶ 8, 930 A.2d 573, 578. If, however, a conflict is found to be present, the court must “analyze the governmental interests underlying the issue and determine which state has the greater interest in the application of its law to the matter at hand.” Id. (citing Thibodeau v. Comcast Corp., 2006 PA Super 346, ¶ 19, 912 A.2d 874, 886); see also Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 416 Pa. 1, 203 A.2d 796 (1964) (holding that the strict lex loci delicti rule is to be abandoned in favor of applying a flexible approach to choice of law questions). This method, known as the “flexible conflicts methodology,” requires a court to apply the law of the state with the most significant contacts or relationships with the particular issue. Caputo v. Allstate Insurance Co., 344 Pa.Super. 1, 6, 495 A.2d 959, 961 (1985); see also McSwain v. McSwain, 420 Pa. 86, 94, 215 A.2d 677, 682 (1966) (A choice-of-law analysis requires a court to apply the law of the state which has, “by reason of its policies and their connection and relevance to the matter in dispute, a priority of interest in the application of its rule of law.”). In Griffith, the Court reasoned that where more than one jurisdiction has an interest in the “legal issues arising out of a particular factual context,” a court should “apply the policy of the jurisdiction most intimately concerned with the outcome of [the] particular litigation.” Griffith, 416 Pa. at 21-22, 203 A.2d at 804-05. In applying this process, the court does not simply count the parties’ contacts with the competing jurisdictions; instead, it 13 must identify the forum with the greater interest by measuring the quality of each contact. Caputo, 344 Pa.Super. at 6, 495 A.2d at 961; see also In Re Estate of Agostini, 311 Pa.Super. 233, 252, 457 A.2d 861, 871 (1983) (“The weight of a particular state’s contact must be measured on a qualitative rather than quantitative scale.”). Accordingly, we must examine the laws of Pennsylvania and Kuwait to determine whether a conflict actually exists. Initially, we note the difficulty in that task as even the parties have agreed that there exists no official English translation of the Kuwaiti Civil Code. (See In Re: Transcript of Proceedings Petition to Transfer Venue, Jul. 13, 2012, 42). Moreover, the parties also appear to be in agreement as to a conflict with substantial implications to the underlying case, namely, the availability of punitive damages. In general, Pennsylvania law allows for punitive damages to be recovered in a defamation action, subject to a finding that the publisher acted “maliciously,” that is, with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. American Future Systems, Inc. v. BBB, 2005 PA Super 103, 872 A.2d 1202, aff’d, 592 Pa. 66, 923 A.2d 389 (2007). Attached to the instant Petition at Exhibit 6 was included an unofficial translation of the Kuwaiti Civil Code (Law No. 67 of 1980), and, specifically, Chapter 3, entitled “Injurious Acts.” (Petition to Transfer Venue, Ex. 6). Article 230 of Chapter 3 of the Kuwaiti Civil Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows: (1) The compensation (reparation) of the harm caused by the unlawful act for which a person is responsible shall be determined by the loss caused and the lost profit, so long as the same was a natural result of the unlawful act. (Petition to Transfer Venue, Ex. 6). Accordingly, the Kuwaiti Civil Code appears not to authorize punitive damages for any tort, while such damages are specifically recoverable under Pennsylvania law. Thus, we make 14 the assumption that the laws of Kuwait and those of the Commonwealth are materially different, thereby resulting in a conflict between the two. Also, by its very nature, a civil law system, as is found in Kuwait, with the codification of its core principles, is sharply at odds with a common law system involving decisional law and precedential authority. Accordingly, we find the first prong of the conflict of interest test is met. In applying the flexible conflicts methodology to the case at bar, we must next determine which state, meaning Pennsylvania or Kuwait, has demonstrated, by reason of its policies and their connection and relevance to the matter in dispute, a priority of interest in the application of its rule of law. Caputo, 344 Pa.Super. at 6, 495 A.2d at 961. In this case, the state having the most vital contacts with the torts of defamation and tortious interference with contractual and other business relationships, the two main centerpieces of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, is Pennsylvania. The conduct alleged in Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint directly implicates a priority of interest in the application of Pennsylvania’s rule of law because of the connection and relevance of this Commonwealth to the matter in dispute. We find that Pennsylvania is the jurisdiction most intimately concerned with the outcome of this particular litigation because the conduct alleged was specifically directed here. The “Wilson Letters” were alleged to have been sent from Kuwait, either by e-mail and/or mail, to be received at the DLA Distribution Center in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. We have no doubt the courts of Kuwait have some interest in resolving disputes between two companies incorporated therein, but the domicile of the parties is but one factor to consider in weighing the contacts of a competing jurisdiction. We find that the interest of Pennsylvania in applying its rule of law to the underlying dispute outweighs that of Kuwait. Pennsylvania is where the allegedly false communications were directed and published; 15 it was here that the letters were designed to cause disruption; and it was in this Commonwealth that any resultant injury to Plaintiffs’ reputation would have been occasioned. For the reasons set forth above, and after careful consideration of the private and public factors at issue in this case, we conclude that jurisdiction is properly retained in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In sum, after review of relevant precedent, and after careful consideration of the arguments advanced by the parties, we find that the combination of the deference afforded to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum, however slight that may be in light of their non-resident status, combined with the significant interest of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in providing a forum in which to litigate their causes of action compels us to conclude that this litigation may properly proceed in Cumberland County. For the foregoing reasons, the following order will be entered: ORDER th AND NOW, this 4 day of September, 2012, upon consideration of the Petition to Transfer Venue for Forum Non Conveniens of Defendants Agility DGS Holdings, Inc., Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc., and Agility International, Inc., the responses filed thereto, and after argument, it is hereby ordered that the Petition of the Defendants is DENIED. BY THE COURT, ___________________________ Kevin A. Hess, P.J. Robert J. Tribeck, Esquire Timothy J. Nieman, Esquire David C. Hammond, Esquire For the Plaintiff 16 George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Alan M. Freeman, Esquire For Defendants :rlm 17 KUWAIT & GULF LINK TRANSPORT : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF COMPANY, KGL LOGISTICS, and : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KGL TRANSPORTATION COMPANY : KSCC, : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : JOHN DOE (a.k.a. Scott Wilson), : No. 2012-1820 Civil Term AGILITY PUBLIC WAREHOUSING : COMPANY K.S.C. (a.k.a. Agility, f.k.a. : The Public Warehousing Company), : AGILITY DGS LOGISTICS SERVICES : COMPANY K.S.C.C. (f.k.a. PWC Logistic : Services Company K.S.C.C.), PWC : TRANSPORT COMPANY W.L.L., : AGILITY DGS HOLDINGS, INC. (f.k.a. : Agility Defense & Government Services, : Inc.), AGILITY DEFENSE & : GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC. (f.k.a. : Taos Industries, Inc.), AGILITY : INTERNATIONAL, INC., : Defendants. : IN RE: PETITION TO TRANSFER VENUE FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS OF DEFENDANTS AGILITY DGS HOLDINGS, INC., AGILITY DEFENSE & GOVERNMENT SERVICES, INC., AND AGILITY INTERNATIONAL, INC. BEFORE HESS, P.J. ORDER th AND NOW, this 4 day of September, 2012, upon consideration of the Petition to Transfer Venue for Forum Non Conveniens of Defendants Agility DGS Holdings, Inc., Agility Defense & Government Services, Inc., and Agility International, Inc., the responses filed thereto, and after argument, it is hereby ordered that the Petition of the Defendants is DENIED. BY THE COURT, ___________________________ Kevin A. Hess, P.J.