Mohit Randhawa v. Skylux, Inc. ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MOHIT RANDHAWA, AKA Harpal No. 13-16581
Singh; SHANNON CALLNET PVT
LTD., D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02304-WBS-
KJN
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
SKYLUX, INC.; INTERACTIVE
INTELLIGENCE, INC.; MUJEEB
PUZHAKKARAILLATH; SKYLUX
TELELINK PVT LTD.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2015**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, D.W. NELSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Mohit Randhawa and Shannon Callnet Pvt Ltd. (STPL) (collectively,
plaintiffs) appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their action against Skylux,
Inc. (Skylux) on the basis of forum non conveniens. We review the district court’s
decision for an abuse of discretion. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257
(1981). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
To prevail on a motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens,
the defendant “must show two things: (1) the existence of an adequate alternative
forum, and (2) that the balance of public and private interest factors favors
dismissal.” Boston Telecommunications Grp. Inc. v. Wood, 588 F.3d 1201, 1206
(9th Cir. 2009), citing Loya v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 583
F.3d 656, 664 (9th Cir. 2009). In dismissing the case, plaintiffs contend the district
court abused its discretion by (1) admitting the expert declaration of Ambika S.,
w/o H.S. Arunpraksh (Ambika S.); (2) concluding that the Ambika S. declaration
sufficiently established the adequacy of Indian courts; (3) determining that the
private interest factors weighed in favor of dismissal; and (4) failing to impose
conditions on dismissal.
First, the district court properly admitted the Ambika S. declaration even
though defendants failed to adhere to Eastern District of California Local Rule
142(a), which requires that affidavits submitted in support of a motion be filed
2
with the motion to which it relates, unless accompanied by an affidavit of counsel
purporting to show good cause for the separate filing. Although “[d]istrict judges
must adhere to their court’s local rules,” only “a departure from local rules that
affects ‘substantial rights’ requires reversal.” All. of Nonprofits for Ins., Risk
Retention Grp. v. Kipper, 712 F.3d 1316, 1327 (9th Cir. 2013) (internal citations
and quotations omitted). Here, the district court had the discretion to admit the late-
filed declaration, even without an affidavit of counsel showing good cause for the
separate filing, because it did not affect plaintiffs’ substantial rights. Despite the
tardy filing, plaintiffs still had over a month to respond to the declaration in their
opposition.
Second, plaintiffs’ argument that the expert declaration was insufficient to
establish the adequacy of the local courts in Bangalore and Ludhiana fails.
Plaintiffs waived this objection by neglecting to raise it before the district court.
See In re E.R. Fegert, Inc., 887 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1989). Even if plaintiffs
had not waived this argument, the district court properly concluded that the courts
of India would provide a suitable alternate forum for this dispute.
Third, plaintiffs contend that the district court abused its discretion in
weighing the private interest factors because the court failed to address ease of
access to sources of proof, the availability of compulsory process, the cost of
3
obtaining attendance of willing witnesses, and the enforceability of a judgment.
Boston Telecommunications, 588 F.2d at 1206-07 (listing the private interest
factors to be weighed). Plaintiffs’ argument is not persuasive. The district court
assessed the locations of the parties and witnesses, emphasizing that almost every
witness resided in India; conceded that it was uncertain as to whether compulsory
process existed, but highlighted that defendants never indicated that witnesses
would be unwilling to testify; and stated that plaintiffs never provided any
evidence demonstrating why a judgment in India would be unenforceable against
STPL.
Lastly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by failing to condition
dismissal on the defendant’s waiver of a statute of limitations defense in the
alternative forum. See Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216,
1235 (9th Cir. 2011), citing Paper Operations Consultants Inern., Ltd. v. S.S. Hong
Kong Amber, 513 F.2d 667, 672 (9th Cir. 1975) (limiting a district court’s
discretion to dismiss for forum non conveniens where an expired statute of
limitations would bar the action in the alternative forum). Plaintiffs never
requested that the district court impose such a condition and have therefore waived
this objection. No case suggests, moreover, that the district court was required to
impose conditions sua sponte on dismissal.
4
AFFIRMED.
5