183 A.3d 1245
Del.2018Background
- Concurring opinion by Justice Vaughn addressing forum non conveniens analysis in Delaware.
- Delaware historically applied an "overwhelming hardship" test, under which dismissals are rare (Kolber; Ison discouraged dismissals).
- Martinez clarified that the overwhelming hardship standard "was not intended to be preclusive."
- Vaughn agrees with the majority that courts should consider international comity and preemptive jurisdiction when evaluating dismissal and alternative forums.
- Vaughn would adopt the majority rule from other jurisdictions that an adequate, available alternative forum is a threshold requirement before granting dismissal, but concurs in judgment because the Superior Court found Argentina to be an available forum and preemption/comity concerns may alter the analysis.
- Vaughn rejects requiring a defendant to waive jurisdictional objections in the alternative forum as a condition for dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an adequate, available alternative forum is a prerequisite to dismissal for forum non conveniens | Plaintiff argues dismissal should not be granted unless an alternative forum exists and is adequate | Defendant seeks dismissal based on forum non conveniens even if the alternative forum's availability is contested | Court (Vaughn) concurs that existence of an available, adequate alternative forum is a threshold requirement, aligning with majority of authority, but upholds dismissal here because Superior Court found Argentina available |
| Whether defendant must waive jurisdictional defenses in the alternative forum as a condition of dismissal | Plaintiff (or forum) may argue waiver is necessary to ensure justice in alternative forum | Defendant resists being required to waive jurisdictional objections in another forum | Court (Vaughn) declines to require defendants to waive jurisdictional objections; such a condition is not appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolber v. Holyoke Shares, Inc., 213 A.2d 444 (Del. 1965) (describing dismissal for forum non conveniens as appropriate only in the "rare case")
- Ison v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 729 A.2d 832 (Del. 1999) (sent message that forum non conveniens motions are disfavored)
- Martinez v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 86 A.3d 1102 (Del. 2014) (clarified that the overwhelming hardship test "was not intended to be preclusive")
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (federal precedent that an alternative forum must exist and be adequate as part of forum non conveniens analysis)