Michelle Trotter v. 7R Holdings LLC , 873 F.3d 435 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                        PRECEDENTIAL
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
    _____________
    No. 16-1967
    _____________
    MICHELLE TROTTER,
    Appellant
    v.
    7R HOLDINGS LLC;
    LUIS A. RUBI GONZALEZ;
    M/Y OLGA
    ____________
    On Appeal from the District Court of the Virgin Islands
    (D.C. Civ. No. 3-14-cv-00099)
    District Judge: Honorable Curtis V. Gomez
    ____________
    Argued May 2, 2017
    ____________
    Before: GREENAWAY, JR., SHWARTZ, and FUENTES,
    Circuit Judges.
    (Opinion Filed: October 12, 2017)
    1
    Thomas F. Friedberg             [ARGUED]
    Sarah L. Bunge
    Law Offices of Friedberg & Bunge
    610 West Ash Street, Suite 1400
    P.O. Box 6814
    San Diego, CA 92166
    Counsel for Appellant
    Jennifer P. Brooks
    Kelly Nicole H. Charles-Collins
    Michael J. Dono                 [ARGUED]
    Jennifer Quildon Miller
    Hamilton Miller & Birthisel,
    150 Southeast Second Avenue, Suite 1200
    Miami, FL 33131
    Counsel for Appellees
    ____________
    OPINION OF THE COURT
    ____________
    GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judge.
    In this appeal, we must determine whether the District
    Court properly exercised its power to dismiss a case pursuant
    to the forum non conveniens doctrine when it dismissed
    2
    Appellant’s claims under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 30104
    (2012), and general maritime laws for unseaworthiness,
    negligence, and maintenance and cure. We shall affirm the
    District Court in two steps. First, we hold that the general
    presumption that “[t]he possibility of a change in substantive
    law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even
    substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry,” Piper
    Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 
    454 U.S. 235
    , 247 (1981), applies to
    these claims (a) because the remedy provided by the alternative
    forum is not clearly inadequate and (b) because the Jones Act
    does not contain a special venue provision. Second, we hold
    that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in exercising
    its forum non conveniens power (a) because the District Court
    correctly determined that an adequate alternative forum existed
    and (b) because the District Court reasonably balanced the
    relevant private and public interest factors.
    I.
    This case arises from the following facts. Luis A. Rubi
    (“Rubi”), a U.S. citizen, serves as the Director of 7R Holdings,
    LLC, a limited liability company with its principal place of
    business in Puerto Rico. 7R Holdings holds 7R Charters
    Limited.1 7R Charters owned M/Y Olga, a yacht registered in
    the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”). Bernard Calot captains
    M/Y Olga. In a series of conversations over email and the
    telephone, Captain Calot, while in Puerto Rico, hired Michelle
    Trotter (“Trotter”), while in Florida, to work as a chef on M/Y
    Olga. On December 19, 2012, Trotter boarded M/Y Olga in
    1
    The record does not provide information on 7R Charters’s
    principal place of business but the District Court stated,
    without citation, that it is a British Virgin Islands corporation.
    3
    St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands (“USVI”). On December 24,
    2012, M/Y Olga traveled to Scrub Island, BVI, and let down
    its anchor. Trotter allegedly sustained an injury while
    descending stairs that connected M/Y Olga to Scrub Island’s
    dock. Shortly after the accident, Trotter received treatment for
    her alleged injuries at a BVI hospital and then flew back to
    Florida.
    Trotter sued Rubi, 7R Holdings, and M/Y Olga
    (“Appellees”) in the District Court of the Virgin Islands
    pursuant to the Jones Act and general maritime laws for the
    personal injury that she claims that she sustained on Scrub
    Island. Appellees moved to dismiss Trotter’s complaint for
    forum non conveniens.
    The District Court granted the motion. The District
    Court, relying on Eurofins Pharma U.S. Holdings v.
    BioAlliance Pharma SA, 
    623 F.3d 147
    (3d Cir. 2010), divided
    its decision into two parts. First, it found that the alternative
    forum, the BVI, qualified as an adequate alternative forum.
    Second, it held that the balance of the public and private
    interests overcame Trotter’s choice of forum.
    On appeal, Trotter raises two issues. First, Trotter
    argues that, as a matter of law, we should vacate the District
    Court’s decision because the District Court failed to perform a
    choice of law analysis before dismissing Trotter’s complaint
    pursuant to forum non conveniens. Second, Trotter asserts that
    we should vacate the District Court’s decision because the
    District Court abused its discretion by granting the motion to
    dismiss pursuant to forum non conveniens. Appellees insist
    that these arguments lack merit. We agree and will affirm.
    4
    II.2
    In resolving this case, we must address two issues.
    First, did the District Court err in failing to determine whether
    U.S. law applies before deciding forum non conveniens?
    Second, did the District Court abuse its discretion in dismissing
    Trotter’s claims for forum non conveniens? We review the first
    question de novo, Maniscalco v. Brother Int’l (USA) Corp.,
    
    709 F.3d 202
    , 206 (3d Cir. 2013), and the second question for
    abuse of discretion, Kisano Trade & Invest Ltd. v. Lemster, 
    737 F.3d 869
    , 872 (3d Cir. 2013).
    A.
    The District Court did not err in failing to determine
    whether U.S. law applies before dismissing the case for forum
    non conveniens. This conclusion rests on the Supreme Court’s
    forum non conveniens jurisprudence.
    The Supreme Court, “in one form of words or another,
    has repeatedly recognized the existence of the power to decline
    jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances.” Gulf Oil Corp. v.
    Gilbert, 
    330 U.S. 501
    , 504 (1947). One example of this power
    is the principle of forum non conveniens. “The principle of
    forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist
    imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is
    authorized by the letter of a general venue statute.” 
    Id. at 507.
    A court may exercise this power when litigating the case in the
    2
    Trotter invoked the District Court’s jurisdiction under 28
    U.S.C. § 1331. Trotter filed a timely notice of appeal on April
    17, 2016. This Court has appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28
    U.S.C. § 1291.
    5
    chosen forum would either oppress a defendant “out of all
    proportion to plaintiff’s convenience” or cause the court
    “administrative and legal problems.” Piper Aircraft 
    Co., 454 U.S. at 241
    (internal quotation marks omitted).
    In deciding whether a venue would oppress a defendant,
    courts may consider “private interests,” such as access to proof,
    availability of process, and other practical issues. Gulf 
    Oil, 330 U.S. at 508
    . In determining whether a venue would cause
    administrative or legal problems, courts may consider “public
    interests,” such as the burdens on the courts and local juries.
    
    Id. at 508–09.
    “[T]he combination and weight of factors
    requisite to given results are difficult to forecast or state . . . .”
    
    Id. at 508.
    As a result, “The forum non conveniens
    determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial
    court” and “[i]t may be reversed only when there has been a
    clear abuse of discretion.” Piper Aircraft 
    Co., 454 U.S. at 257
    .
    “[W]here the court has considered all relevant public and
    private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors
    is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference.” 
    Id. In Piper
    Aircraft Co., a case involving wrongful-death
    actions, the Supreme Court held that “[t]he possibility of a
    change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given
    conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non
    conveniens inquiry.” 
    Id. at 247
    (emphasis added). The
    Supreme Court came to this conclusion because privileging
    this factor would prevent the doctrine from serving private and
    public interests. It would undermine the private interests
    because “[i]f substantial weight were given to the possibility of
    an unfavorable change in law . . . , dismissal might be barred
    even where trial in the chosen forum was plainly
    inconvenient.” 
    Id. at 249.
    It would harm the public interests
    because “[i]f the possibility of a change in law were given
    6
    substantial weight . . . [c]hoice-of-law analysis would become
    extremely important, and the courts would frequently be
    required to interpret the law of foreign jurisdictions.” 
    Id. at 251.
    In at least two situations, however, the Supreme Court
    has concluded that choice of law questions must receive
    substantial or conclusive weight in forum non conveniens
    decisions. First, “if the remedy provided by the alternative
    forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no
    remedy at all, the unfavorable change in law may be given
    substantial weight.” 
    Id. at 254.
    Second, a “plaintiff’s choice
    of a forum cannot be defeated on the basis of forum non
    conveniens” when “the special venue act under which those
    cases are brought [is] believed to require it.” Gulf 
    Oil, 330 U.S. at 505
    . Special venue acts “specifically provide[] where venue
    may be had in any suit on a cause of action arising under that
    statute.” 
    Id. at 506.
    The Supreme Court has found that at least two special
    venue acts prohibited courts from dismissing cases for forum
    non conveniens. In the first case, Baltimore & O. R. Co. v.
    Kepner, the Court held that Congress gave “[a] privilege of
    venue” to sue pursuant to the Federal Employers’ Liability Act
    and that “this right of action cannot be frustrated for reasons of
    convenience or expense.” 
    314 U.S. 44
    , 54 (1941). In the
    second case, United States v. National City Lines, the Court
    concluded, “In the face of th[e Clayton Act’s] history we
    cannot say that room was left for judicial discretion to apply
    the doctrine of forum non conveniens so as to deprive the
    plaintiff of the choice given by the section.” 
    334 U.S. 573
    , 588
    (1948). Congress subsequently superseded these Supreme
    Court decisions by enacting the domestic-transfer statute, 28
    U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2012), which allows a district court to
    7
    “transfer any civil action to any other district or division where
    it might have been brought” for “the convenience of parties and
    witnesses, in the interest of justice.” Id.; see United States v.
    Nat’l City Lines, Inc., 
    337 U.S. 78
    (1949) (recognizing that §
    1404(a) allows for the transfer of Clayton Act suits); Ex parte
    Collett, 
    337 U.S. 55
    (1949) (recognizing that § 1404(a) allows
    for the transfer of Federal Employers’ Liability Act suits).
    Trotter does not recognize Piper Aircraft Co.’s general
    presumption against giving choice of law “substantial weight
    in the forum non conveniens 
    inquiry,” 454 U.S. at 247
    , or the
    two exceptions to this rule. We, however, do recognize this
    rule and its exceptions. As a result, we address whether either
    of the two exceptions apply here. We answer these questions,
    even though Trotter did not raise them in her written or oral
    communications to us, because they are antecedent legal issues
    that we must resolve before deciding the case as a whole. See
    Haybarger v. Lawrence Cty. Adult Probation & Parole, 
    667 F.3d 408
    , 412–13 (3d Cir. 2012).
    We conclude that the first exception does not apply
    because the District Court correctly held that the alternative
    forum would recognize Trotter’s negligence claims. As a
    result, this is not a case where “the remedy provided by the
    alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that
    it is no remedy at all.” Piper Aircraft 
    Co., 454 U.S. at 254
    .
    We hold that the second exception—the special venue
    provision exception—does not apply either. When Congress
    passed the Jones Act, it sought “to provide liberal recovery for
    injured workers,” Kernan v. Am. Dredging Co., 
    355 U.S. 426
    ,
    432 (1958), and included a “special venue provision” that
    “provided a more generous choice of forum than would have
    been available at that time under the general venue statute,”
    8
    Pure Oil Co. v. Suarez, 
    384 U.S. 202
    , 204–05 (1966). The
    special venue provision, as originally enacted, read as follows:
    “Jurisdiction in such actions shall be under the court of the
    district in which the defendant employer resides or in which
    his principal office is located.” The Merchant Marine Act,
    Pub. L. No. 66-261, § 20, 41 Stat. 988 (1920). 3 The
    contemporaneous general venue statute, by contrast, omitted
    any reference to the location of “his principal office” and
    instead only allowed plaintiffs to sue a defendant “in the
    district where he resides.” Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, § 52, 36
    Stat. 1101 (1913).
    Congress amended the Jones Act in 2008 by striking the
    special venue provision in its entirety. Because of this
    amendment, we conclude that Piper Aircraft Co.’s general
    presumption—that choice of law decisions are not entitled to
    substantial weight in the forum non conveniens analyses—
    controls, and the special-venue exception does not apply to the
    Jones Act.
    The Amendment’s legislative history does not question
    this conclusion. In passing this amendment, the House of
    Representatives Committee on the Judiciary published a report
    that explained that it did not intend to change the substantive
    law: “This subsection is being repealed to make clearer that the
    prior law regarding venue, including the holding of Pure Oil
    Co. v. Suarez, 
    384 U.S. 202
    (1966) and the cases following it,
    3
    Jurisdiction means venue in this context. Pan. R. Co. v.
    Johnson , 
    264 U.S. 375
    , 384–85 (1924) (“[T]he provision is
    not intended to affect the general jurisdiction of the District
    Courts as defined in section 24, but only to prescribe the venue
    for actions brought under the new act of which it is a part.”).
    9
    remains in effect, so that the action may be brought wherever
    the seaman’s employer does business.” H.R. Rep. 110–437, 5
    (2007). Pure Oil Co. held that 28 U.S.C. § 1391 expanded the
    Jones Act’s “reside[nce]” requirement and the availability of
    venue from the defendant’s place of incorporation and place of
    principal office to the place of incorporation, the place of
    license, and the place where the corporation does 
    business. 384 U.S. at 203
    –05, 206. It observed that the Jones Act contained
    a “special venue provision.” 
    Id. at 204.
    This case, as cited in
    the legislative history, did not concern forum non conveniens
    at all, but instead focused on the proper scope of venue under
    the Jones Act. Thus, neither Pure Oil Co. nor the legislative
    history undermines our conclusion.
    Our sister courts of appeals’ decisions do not give us
    pause. Of the five circuits to consider the question, three
    concluded that the Jones Act, as originally enacted, contained
    a special venue provision that prohibited forum non conveniens
    dismissal. See, e.g., Vasquez v. YII Shipping Co., 
    692 F.3d 1192
    , 1197 (11th Cir. 2012) (“Under the federal maritime
    choice-of-law test, applicable to Jones Act seafarers in federal
    district court, a case should not be dismissed on grounds of
    forum non conveniens if federal maritime law applies to the
    case . . . .”); Loya v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide,
    Inc., 
    583 F.3d 656
    , 662 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[I]n Jones Act cases
    . . . a court must first make a choice of law determination before
    dismissing for forum non conveniens.”); Needham v. Phillips
    Petroleum Co. of Nor., 
    719 F.2d 1481
    , 1483 (10th Cir. 1983)
    (“In order to apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the
    trial court must conduct a choice of law analysis in order to
    determine whether American or foreign law governs. If
    American law is applicable to the case, the forum non
    conveniens doctrine is inapplicable.”). But see Camejo v.
    10
    Ocean Drilling & Expl., 
    838 F.2d 1374
    , 1379 (5th Cir. 1988)
    (“We therefore, expressly disapprove of and overrule our Jones
    Act and general maritime caselaw that utilizes a modified
    forum non conveniens analysis.”); Cruz v. Mar. Co. of Phil.,
    
    702 F.2d 47
    , 48 (2d Cir. 1983) (“To summarize, when the
    Jones Act is applicable[,] federal law is involved and the
    district court must exercise its power to adjudicate, absent
    some exceptional circumstances such as the application of the
    abstention doctrine or, as here, the equitable principle of forum
    non conveniens.”). In DeMateos v. Texaco, Inc., 
    562 F.2d 895
    (3d Cir. 1977), we indicated our support for the majority rule,
    but both Congress’s repeal of the Jones Act’s special venue
    provision and Piper Aircraft Co. call this majority rule into
    question. See 
    id. (describing DeMateos’s
    interpretation as
    “dictum”). The absence of a special venue provision in the
    Jones Act demonstrates that there is no special-venue
    exception to the normal forum non conveniens approach and
    therefore no choice of law inquiry is required.
    B.
    Having found that neither exception to the general
    presumption against giving choice of law questions substantial
    weight in forum non conveniens decisions applies, we review
    the District Court’s decision for abuse of discretion. Kisano
    Trade & Invest 
    Ltd., 737 F.3d at 872
    .
    Here, the District Court did not abuse its discretion.
    “[W]hen considering a motion to dismiss on forum non
    conveniens grounds, a district court must first determine
    whether an adequate alternate forum can entertain the case.”
    Eurofins Pharma US 
    Holdings, 623 F.3d at 160
    (alteration in
    original). After finding that an adequate alternative forum
    exists, the district court must “determine[] the amount of
    11
    deference due to the plaintiff’s choice of forum” and “balance
    the relevant private and public interest factors.” 
    Id. The private
    interest factors include: “access to sources
    of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of
    unwilling . . . witnesses;” “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.” Gulf Oil 
    Corp., 330 U.S. at 508
    .
    The public interest factors include: the possibility of
    turning courts into “congested centers;” the likelihood that the
    case will burden a jury composed of people with “no relation
    to the litigation;” the probability that the case will “touch the
    affairs of many persons” in the community; and the chances
    that the court will be “at home with the . . . law that must govern
    the case.” 
    Id. at 508–09.
    In articulating these factors, the Supreme Court
    repeatedly emphasized the district court’s discretion in
    selecting and reviewing factors. “Wisely, it has not been
    attempted to catalogue the circumstances which will justify or
    require either grant or denial of remedy” and that “the
    combination and weight of factors requisite to given results are
    difficult to forecast or state.” 
    Id. at 508.
    As a result, this list
    of factors is both over and under inclusive: “This list of
    considerations to be balanced is by no means exhaustive, and
    some factors may not be relevant in the context of a particular
    case.” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 
    486 U.S. 517
    , 528–29
    (1988). “The moving defendant must show that an adequate
    alternative forum exists as to all defendants and, if so, that the
    private and public interest factors weigh heavily on the side of
    12
    dismissal.” Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 
    862 F.2d 38
    , 44 (3d
    Cir. 1988).
    1.
    In this case, the District Court found that the BVI could
    serve as an adequate alternative forum (a) because the BVI’s
    judicial process resembled the USVI’s legal procedures; (b)
    because the Defendants “have stipulated that they will submit
    themselves to the jurisdiction of the BVI courts;” 4 and (c)
    because the BVI’s law would recognize Trotter’s negligence
    claim. Trotter v. 7R Holdings, LLC, No. CV 2014-99, 
    2016 WL 1271025
    , at *2–3 (D.V.I. Mar. 30, 2016).
    Trotter appeals two facets of this conclusion. First, she
    argues that the BVI could not serve as an adequate alternative
    forum because “it has no jurisdiction over any of the
    Defendants.” Appellant’s Br. at 25. Trotter asserts this
    contention despite her acknowledgement, and the District
    Court’s finding, that the Appellees have “stipulated that they
    will submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the BVI courts.”
    Trotter, 
    2016 WL 1271025
    , at *2. Trotter asks us to question
    this finding on the grounds that “[a] statement by counsel in a
    brief is not binding on the party or enforceable in any court.”
    Appellant’s Br. at 26. We reject this argument and side with
    the District Court because “one cannot casually cast aside
    representations, oral or written, in the course of litigation” and
    because “a reviewing court may properly consider the
    4
    At Oral Argument, Appellees’ counsel consented to service
    on behalf of all of his clients. Oral Arg. Recording at 24:00–
    25:30, http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/oralargument/audio/16-
    1967Trotterv.7RHoldingsLLC.mp3.
    13
    representations made in the appellate brief to be binding as a
    form of judicial estoppel.” EF Operating Corp. v. Am. Bldgs.,
    
    993 F.2d 1046
    , 1050 (3d Cir. 1993).
    Second, she claims that the BVI is not an adequate
    alternative forum because “Defendants have not established
    that BVI law provides any theory for Plaintiff to recover
    against Defendants.” Appellant’s Br. at 25. Trotter rests this
    claim on the observation that U.S. law provides a more
    favorable liability standard than the common law. She notes
    that “the Jones Act and unseaworthiness causes of action allow
    a condition on the dock to be imputed to Defendants even
    though they do not control the area where the seaman is
    injured” and that “a seaman injured in the service of the ship,
    even on shore leave, is entitled to maintenance and cure
    without any fault on the part of the vessel.” 
    Id. at 28.
    We find this argument unpersuasive. In Piper Aircraft
    Co., the Supreme Court held that a district court properly
    dismissed a claim under forum non conveniens and held that
    “there is no danger that [the plaintiffs] will be deprived of any
    remedy” even though the plaintiffs “may not be able to rely on
    a strict liability 
    theory.” 454 U.S. at 255
    . Trotter’s argument
    mirrors the argument rejected by Piper Aircraft Co. because,
    in both cases, the plaintiffs claimed that U.S.—but not the
    foreign—law would allow them to recover without proving the
    defendants’ negligence or fault. Because Trotter makes an
    argument that resembles the argument rejected by the Supreme
    Court in Piper Aircraft Co., we affirm the District Court on this
    issue.
    14
    2.
    The District Court held that, although Trotter’s choice
    should receive “great deference” because she is a U.S. citizen,
    the “balance of the public and private factors clearly favors an
    alternate forum.” Trotter, 
    2016 WL 1271025
    , at *4 (citing
    Windt v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 
    529 F.3d 183
    , 190 (3d
    Cir. 2008)). Private factors counseled in favor of dismissal, the
    District Court found, (a) because no fact witness resided in the
    USVI; (b) because the accident occurred on either a vessel
    owned by a BVI corporation or on a piece of land in the BVI;
    and (c) because litigating the case in the USVI would cause the
    parties to “incur significant expenses.” 
    Id. at *5–6.
    Public
    factors supported dismissal, the District Court held, because it
    would be unfair to subject the citizens of the USVI to deciding
    a dispute that hinged on foreign evidence and foreign law and
    because the other factors came out as neutral.
    Trotter appeals this decision by arguing that the District
    Court should have weighed these factors differently and should
    have considered additional factors. In making this argument,
    though, Trotter provides no persuasive case law. Indeed, the
    two cases that she claims most support her position differ from
    the instant case in important respects.
    In the first case, Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., Graeme
    Lacey suffered injuries in a plane crash in Canada and sued
    three of the plane’s manufacturers in the Western District of
    Pennsylvania. 
    932 F.2d 170
    , 172 (3d Cir. 1991). 5 The
    5
    We do not address Lacey’s predecessor, Lacey v. Cessna
    Aircraft Co., 
    862 F.2d 38
    (3d Cir. 1988), at length. In the prior
    case, we reversed the district court because it had granted the
    defendants’ forum non conveniens motion even though the
    15
    manufacturers successfully moved to dismiss the case pursuant
    to the court’s forum non conveniens power. 
    Id. In granting
    the
    motion, the district court recognized the potential difficulty in
    compelling U.S. witnesses to appear in Canada and
    conditioned its dismissal “on defendants making all relevant
    witnesses and documents in their control available to plaintiff
    in the alternative forum for discovery and trial, at defendants’
    expense.” Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 
    736 F. Supp. 662
    , 664
    (W.D. Pa. 1990). On appeal, we reversed in four steps. First,
    we observed that relevant evidence related to the plane’s
    exhaust system, a product that a Pennsylvania-based defendant
    allegedly manufactured. 
    Lacey, 932 F.2d at 173
    . Second, we
    noted that the Pennsylvania-based defendant “now represents
    that no documents relating to or personnel familiar with the
    company’s prior aircraft exhaust business are under its
    control.” 
    Id. Third, because
    Lacey’s claims depended on
    evidence related to the exhaust system and because no
    defendant controlled this evidence, we concluded that the
    court’s conditional dismissal, which compelled defendants to
    produce all relevant witnesses and documents in the Canadian
    court, could not “ensure [Lacey’s] access to sources of proof.”
    
    Id. Fourth, the
    inadequacy of the conditional dismissal
    mattered because Canada’s procedural laws prevented Lacey
    from obtaining evidence within the control of non-parties in
    the United States. 
    Id. at 173–74.
    defendants “submitted no evidence to support their
    contentions, except for a copy of a pleading filed in the British
    Columbia litigation.” 
    Lacey, 862 F.2d at 44
    . Here, the
    Appellees submitted affidavits to bolster their claims. As a
    result, Lacey’s predecessor provides little guidance and
    requires minimal attention.
    16
    Unlike in Lacey, the relevant evidence in the case at bar
    rests in the alternative forum. To prove her claims, Trotter may
    require documents from BVI companies, witnesses from the
    scene of her accident in the BVI, and access to the relevant
    dock in the BVI. Thus, our reasoning in Lacey does not apply
    here.
    In the second case, Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours &
    Co., Adolf Lony, a German sole proprietorship, bought
    cellophane from Du Pont, a Delaware corporation, and sold it
    to Haribo, a German corporation. 
    886 F.2d 628
    , 630 (3d Cir.
    1989). 6 During the transaction, Du Pont told Lony that the
    cellophane did not contain a specific toxic chemical. 
    Id. When it
    received the cellophane, Haribo discovered that it contained
    the specific toxic chemical and canceled its contract with Lony.
    
    Id. Lony claimed
    that it suffered a loss and sued Du Pont in
    the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
    
    Id. at 631.
    Du Pont successfully moved for forum non
    conveniens and Lony appealed. 
    Id. We reversed,
    inter alia,
    because the District Court abused its discretion in weighing the
    private and public interests. 
    Id. at 643–44.
    It specifically
    abused its discretion in weighing the private interests, we held,
    because it regarded the private interest factors as standing in
    “equipoise or tipped to the defendant” but incorrectly
    6
    We need not dwell on Lony’s progeny, Lony v. E.I. Du Pont
    de Nemours & Co., 
    935 F.2d 604
    (3d Cir. 1991). In the
    subsequent case, we reversed the district court because of its
    “failure to consider the extent of merits activity already
    completed and underway in Delaware.” 
    Lony, 935 F.2d at 613
    .
    Here, the District Court did not allow any discovery, let alone
    the six months of discovery at issue in Lony’s progeny. As a
    result, Lony’s progeny merits little discussion.
    17
    concluded that this balance “favors dismissal.” 
    Id. at 640.
    It
    abused its discretion in considering the public interest factors,
    we found, because it erroneously assumed that only foreign
    law would apply to Lony’s claims in a U.S. court. 
    Id. at 642–
    43.
    Neither of these issues applies to the case at bar. With
    regard to the private interest factors, Lony’s analysis does not
    extend to this case because the District Court did not regard the
    private interest factors as standing in equipoise. Instead, it held
    that two of the “factor[s] counsel[ed] in favor of dismissal” and
    that one “factor strongly favor[ed] the case being heard in the
    BVI.” Trotter, 
    2016 WL 1271025
    , at *6. With respect to the
    public interest factors, Lony’s holding does not apply because
    the District Court did not assume that foreign law applied.
    Rather, the District Court “[wa]s uncertain whether United
    States law or BVI law would apply” and, as a result,
    “refrain[ed] from attributing much weight to this particular
    factor.” 
    Id. at *7.
    Because the District Court reasonably
    balanced the private and public interest factors, we will affirm
    the District Court on this issue.
    III.
    For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the District
    Court’s order of dismissal.
    18
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-1967

Citation Numbers: 873 F.3d 435, 2017 WL 4543696, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19917

Judges: Greenaway, Shwartz, Fuentes

Filed Date: 10/12/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024

Authorities (20)

Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co. , 736 F. Supp. 662 ( 1990 )

Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. Kepner , 62 S. Ct. 6 ( 1941 )

Nathaniel Cruz v. Maritime Company of Philippines , 702 F.2d 47 ( 1983 )

Windt v. Qwest Communications International, Inc. , 529 F.3d 183 ( 2008 )

george-a-needham-of-the-estate-of-stuart-r-gilham-deceased-on-behalf , 719 F.2d 1481 ( 1983 )

United States v. National City Lines, Inc. , 69 S. Ct. 955 ( 1949 )

Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA , 623 F.3d 147 ( 2010 )

Panama Railroad v. Johnson , 44 S. Ct. 391 ( 1924 )

Amelia Zamora Demateos, Administratrix of the Estate of ... , 562 F.2d 895 ( 1977 )

Loya v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. , 583 F.3d 656 ( 2009 )

fed-carr-cas-p-83829-ef-operating-corporation-ta-west-motor-freight , 993 F.2d 1046 ( 1993 )

graeme-macarthur-lacey-v-cessna-aircraft-company-a-corporation-hanlon , 862 F.2d 38 ( 1988 )

Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard , 108 S. Ct. 1945 ( 1988 )

graeme-macarthur-lacey-v-cessna-aircraft-company-a-corporation-hanlon , 932 F.2d 170 ( 1991 )

Adolf Lony v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company , 935 F.2d 604 ( 1991 )

Shirlei Kirschner Camejo v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration , 838 F.2d 1374 ( 1988 )

Adolf Lony v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company , 886 F.2d 628 ( 1989 )

Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation & Parole , 667 F.3d 408 ( 2012 )

United States v. National City Lines, Inc. , 68 S. Ct. 1169 ( 1948 )

Pure Oil Co. v. Suarez , 86 S. Ct. 1394 ( 1966 )

View All Authorities »