In a previous blog, I wrote about how the opposing party, in a case filed two Petitions for Protection from Abuse in two different counties raising the same or substantially similar claims but asking for different relief. The Judge in the second filing county, knowing that a Judge in the first filing county had already granted a Temporary Protection from Abuse Order, still entered now the second Temporary Protection from Abuse Order. My then client, the Defendant in both, was then confronting two PFA actions against him in two different counties raising the same or substantially similar claims by the same Plaintiff. We filed a Motion to Dismiss the second Petition explaining that my client is essentially subjected to a civil version of double jeopardy: we could win the case in the first county and still have to confront the same action in the second county. Or we could lose in both counties and have two separate orders issued from the different counties adjudicating the same claim but with possible different remedies. The court in the second county granted my Motion to Dismiss, dismissed the Petition for Protection from Abuse and vacated the Temporary PFA Order.
I just had another PFA case dismissed but on different grounds. In this more recent case, the Plaintiff/Wife filed a Petition for Protection from Abuse against her Defendant/Husband in a Pennsylvania court. In the divorce action between the two, the Wife had filed for divorce in that same county. Husband challenged the court’s jurisdiction to hear the divorce case because both spouses had been residing for several years outside of the United States and Husband now resides out of state and Wife does not reside in Pennsylvania. The divorce court denied Husband’s challenge and determined that the “domicile” for the divorce case was in the Pennsylvania county in which the divorce was filed because inter alia Wife had resided in that county prior to relocating overseas.
The Wife had also filed a Petition for Protection from Abuse in the same Pennsylvania county. The Husband hired me. We filed Preliminary Objections challenging inter alia the court’s jurisdiction over the person of the Husband on the grounds that the Pennsylvania because neither party resided in the Pennsylvania and the abusive contacts alleged in the Petition for Protection from Abuse did not occur in Pennsylvania; they allegedly occurred overseas before the Husband relocated to United States, but not to Pennsylvania. The Court agreed with us, sustained our Preliminary Objections, dismissed the Petition and vacated the Temporary Protection from Abuse Order.
The Court explained, correctly, there is a difference between jurisdiction for a divorce action and a protection from abuse action, i.e., different legal standards apply. The Court agreed with our legal position that it did not have jurisdiction over the Husband because Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment require the contacts underlying the lawsuit to have occurred in Pennsylvania.