Rule Text
(a) General Rule. Except as otherwise provided by subdivision (c) of this rule, an action against a partnership may be brought in and only in a county where
(1) the partnership regularly conducts business;
(2) the cause of action arose;
(3) a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose; or
(4) the property or a part of the property, which is the subject matter of the action, is located provided that equitable relief is sought with respect to the property.
(b) Venue in Actions Against a Liquidator. Except as otherwise provided by subdivision (c) of this rule, an action against a liquidator may be brought in and only in a county where
(1) the liquidator is liquidating the partnership business;
(2) the partnership last regularly conducted business;
(3) the cause of action arose; or
(4) a transaction or occurrence took place out of which the cause of action arose.
This rule shall not apply to an action against a liquidator deriving authority under the laws of the United States.
(c) Exception. Subdivisions (a) and (b) of this rule do not restrict or affect the venue of an action
(1) against a partnership commenced by or for the attachment, seizure, garnishment, sequestration, or condemnation of real or personal property; or
(2) for the recovery of the possession of or the determination of the title to real or personal property.
Amendment history: The provisions of this Rule 2130 adopted May 1, 1939, effective November 6, 1939; amended April 18, 1975, effective immediately, 5 Pa.B. 1820; amended April 12, 1999, effective July 1, 1999, 29 Pa.B. 2274; amended January 27, 2003, effective immediately, 33 Pa.B. 751; amended December 16, 2003, effective July 1, 2004, 34 Pa.B. 9; amended August 25, 2022, effective January 1, 2023, 52 Pa.B. 5792; amended February 18, 2026, effective immediately, 56 Pa.B. 1106. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (411431).
Plain-English Summary (for reference only — not a substitute for the rule text above)
This summary is not the rule. The rule text controls.
When you sue a partnership in Pennsylvania, you have to file your case in the right county. You can file where the partnership regularly does business, where the problem or incident happened, or where property involved in the case is located (if you're asking the court for something related to that property).
If the partnership is being shut down and you need to sue the person handling that process (called a liquidator), similar rules apply. You can file where the liquidator is doing the wind-down work, where the partnership last did business, or where the dispute arose. This part of the rule does not apply if the liquidator gets their authority from federal law.
There are a couple of exceptions to these location rules. If your case involves seizing, attaching, or condemning property, or if you're trying to get property back or settle a question about who owns it, these county restrictions do not apply.
Committee Notes
By Order of August 25, 2022, effective January 1, 2023 (‘‘2022 amendments’’), the Court rescinded Rule 1006(a.1), a special venue rule that applied to medical professional liability actions filed on or after January 1, 2002. Corresponding amendments removed references to Rule 1006(a.1) from Rule 2130, governing venue in an action against a partnership, Rule 2156, governing venue in an action against an unincorporated association, and Rule 2179, governing venue in an action against a corporation or similar entity. The 2022 amendments thus returned Rules 1006, 2130, 2156, and 2179 to their pre-2003 versions, pursuant to which medical professionals were governed by the same venue rules applicable to other non-governmental defendants.
The 2022 amendments added a provision to each rule requiring the Civil Procedural Rules Committee to ‘‘reexamine the 2022 rule amendments two years after their effective date.’’ Rules 1006(g), 2130(d), 2156(c), and 2179(c). The committee received commentary on behalf of medical professionals asserting that the impact of the 2022 amendments could not yet be determined, and that more time was needed to develop the necessary data. By Order of February 18, 2026, the Court amended Rules 1006, 2130, 2156, and 2179 to remove the expired reexamination provisions. The Court will consider any future proposals as submitted through the Court’s usual rules committee processes.
