Tomomi Umeda v. Tesla, Inc. ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 3 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TOMOMI UMEDA, an Individual, and as No. 21-15286
Successor-in-Interest to Yoshihiro Umeda,
deceased.; MIYU UMEDA, an Individual, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-02926-SVK
and Successor-in-Interest,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM*
v.
TESLA, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan G. Van Keulen, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 7, 2021
Pasadena, California
Before: BERZON, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
After their family member Yoshihiro Umeda was fatally struck by a Tesla
Model X operating in Autopilot mode, Tomomi Umeda and Miyu Umeda
(collectively, “the Umedas”) sued Tesla, Inc., in the Northern District of
California. Tesla filed a motion to dismiss the action on forum non conveniens
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
grounds, which the district court granted. The Umedas appealed.
We review a forum non conveniens dismissal for abuse of discretion,
affording “substantial deference” to the district court’s determination. See Piper
Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). To warrant dismissal, a defendant
bears the burden of demonstrating 1) there exists an adequate alternative forum, 2)
the balance of private interest factors favor dismissal, and 3) the balance of public
interest factors favor dismissal. See Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643
F.3d 1216, 1224 (9th Cir. 2011).1 The Umedas appeal only with respect to the
private interest factors.
When considering the private interest factors, a district court has “the
broadest possible discretion.” Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d
1163, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). It can consider “any or all” of the factors it deems
relevant, giving “appropriate weight to each.” Id. (quoting Lueck v. Sundstrand
1
Although the Umedas acknowledge that these three factors are the proper
standard, they argue Tesla also “bore the burden to prove” that “litigation in the
Appellants’ chosen forum would ‘result[] in oppressiveness and vexation . . . out of
all proportion to the [Appellants’] convenience.’” Such a showing is not an
independent requirement defendants must meet; it is what is determined by a
balancing of the private and public interest factors. See Carijano, 643 F.3d at 1227;
Cooper v. Tokyo Elec. Power Co., 860 F.3d 1193, 1211 (9th Cir. 2017); Ayco
Farms, Inc. v. Ochoa, 862 F.3d 945, 948–51 (9th Cir. 2017) (per curiam).
Moreover, because the Umedas are foreign plaintiffs, they do not enjoy the “strong
presumption” a United States plaintiff would in favor of their chosen forum.
Carijano, 643 F.3d at 1227. Their choice forum is entitled to less deference, and
Tesla accordingly bears a lighter burden.
2
Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001)). The private interest factors are the
following:
(1) the residence of the parties and the witnesses;
(2) the forum’s convenience to the litigants;
(3) access to physical evidence and other sources of proof;
(4) whether unwilling witnesses can be compelled to testify;
(5) the cost of bringing witnesses to trial;
(6) the enforceability of the judgment; and
(7) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious
and inexpensive.
Cooper, 860 F.3d at 1211 (citing Carijano, 643 F.3d at 1229). The district court
here relied primarily on factors three through six—a focus Tuazon permits. The
court considered the convenience to each party of the California forum compared
to a Japanese forum, the parties’ respective difficulty and ease of accessing
evidence in each forum including costliness, and the enforceability of the
judgment.
A district court does “not act unreasonably in concluding that fewer
evidentiary problems would be posed if the trial were held” in a foreign forum
closer to “[a] large proportion of the relevant evidence.” Piper, 454 U.S. at 257–
58. This principle has special force when the United States-based evidence is
controlled by one of the parties. Indeed “the private interest factors weigh in favor
of dismissal” when a district court concludes it “cannot compel production of
much of the [foreign-based] evidence, whereas the parties control, and therefore
can bring, all the United States evidence to [the foreign forum].” Lueck, 236 F.3d
3
at 1147.
The district court reasonably found such circumstances present here.
Although “relevant evidence is located in both California and Japan,” it observed,
“[m]ost of the evidence identified by Plaintiffs concerns the design of Autopilot
and is in the possession of Tesla,” such that Tesla could furnish it in a Japanese
forum. See id. at 1147. Further, the district court conditioned its dismissal on
Tesla’s agreement that the Umedas could depose the corporation using Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6).2
Testimony by former Tesla employees, however, is not under Tesla’s control
and would be more readily accessible in a California forum. The district court
acknowledged this evidentiary difficulty, but noted, “Plaintiffs may have other
avenues to pursue such evidence, such as the ability to seek discovery in the United
States for use in a Japanese proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782.”3 The district
2
This Rule describes the requirements of a party’s notice of deposition or
subpoena directed to an organization, that is, where “the deponent” named is “a
public or private corporation, a partnership, an association, a governmental agency,
or other entity.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).
3
This statute provides, in relevant part:
The district court of the district in which a person resides or is found may
order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or
other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal,
including criminal investigations conducted before formal accusation. The
order may be made pursuant to a letter rogatory issued, or request made, by
a foreign or international tribunal or upon the application of any interested
person and may direct that the testimony or statement be given, or the
4
court did not abuse its discretion in so reasoning.
Finally, the district court considered the enforceability of a judgment by a
Japanese court. The Umedas do not argue the district court failed to consider this
factor, nor could they. The district court conditioned its dismissal on Tesla’s
“agree[ment] to the enforceability of any Japanese judgment obtained by Plaintiffs
in Japan, California, and elsewhere in the United States where Tesla has assets.”
Although this panel might have reached a different result in the first
instance, we cannot conclude that the district court abused its discretion in
weighing the private interest factors as it did and dismissing for forum non
conveniens.
AFFIRMED.
document or other thing be produced, before a person appointed by the
court.
28 U.S.C. § 1782(a).
5