The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled in Abramge v. Stryker, that a federal district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit for forum non conveniens was improper. Associação Brasileira De Medicina De Grupo dba Abramge v Stryker Corporation et al, Docket No. 17-1828 (May 31, 2018). Under the common law doctrine, forum non conveniens is when a federal court declines to exercise its jurisdiction, even though the court has jurisdiction and venue, when the convenience of the parties and court, as well as interests of justice, indicate that the action should be tried in another forum. See Baumgart v. Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 981 F.2d 824, 828 (5th Cir. 1993).
http://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/18a0100p-06.pdf
In Ambrage, the Plaintiff, a Brazilian professional nonprofit, filed a complaint in the Western District of Michigan asserting that Defendant masterminded an “illicit scheme, which was planned and run from Michigan, designed to increase its market share by making improper payments and paying bribes and kickbacks to Brazilian doctors to induce the use of [Defendant’s] products.” Plaintiff alleged claims of fraud, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with contractual relationships, and unjust enrichment. The suit was dismissed by the trial court for forum non conveniens.
The Appeals Court stated that forum non conveniens should be invoked only in “rather rare cases”. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 509 (1947). The Court then applied a three-step test to determine whether dismissal is appropriate; After [1] the court determines the degree of deference owed the plaintiff’s forum choice, the defendant carries the burden of [2] establishing an adequate alternative forum and [3] showing that the plaintiff’s chosen forum is unnecessarily burdensome on public and private interests.
The Court concluded that the first step was correctly decided by the trial court. Plaintiff’s choice of forum was given little deference on the basis that Plaintiff is a foreign plaintiff with minimal connection to the United States, and it is unreasonable to assume that Michigan offers Plaintiff convenience as a litigation forum.
The second step, whether the claim can be heard in an available and adequate alternative forum, was incorrectly decided by the trial court. The Appeals Court emphasized that “identifying an alternate forum is a prerequisite for dismissal, not a factor to be balanced”. Therefore “if there is no suitable alternate forum where the case can proceed, the entire inquiry ends.” The defendant is the party that bears the burden of identifying an alternative forum that meets these criteria. Hefferan v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc., 828 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2016).
The Appeals Court stated that “it is not obvious from the pleadings alone that a Brazilian court would be able to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant and offer a satisfactory remedy.” This is because [1] there is no obvious jurisdictional hook to bring Defendant into a Brazilian court, and [2] it was not known whether the remedy offered by Brazilian courts to parties facing the type of harm Plaintiff alleges is inadequate. Therefore, Defendant failed to carry its burden and it was an abuse of discretion to dismiss the case. The case was reversed and remanded.
This article was written by Ryan Hansen, Law Clerk
