Associação Brasileira De Medicina De Grupo v. Stryker Corp., 891 F.3d 615

Abramge, a Brazilian nonprofit whose members are private health insurers, sued Stryker (a Michigan corporation) in Western District of Michigan alleging Stryker paid bribes/kickbacks to Brazilian doctors, inflating device use and healthcare costs.
Claims: fraud, civil conspiracy, tortious interference with contractual relationships, and unjust enrichment.
District court dismissed the suit on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding Brazil was the proper forum.
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reviewed whether the defendant met its burden to show Brazil was an available and adequate alternative forum.
The court held Stryker failed to present evidentiary proof (e.g., affidavit or expert) that Brazilian courts could exercise jurisdiction and provide a remedy for Abramge's claims; an attorney’s statement in a brief consenting to Brazilian jurisdiction was insufficient.
Because the alternative-forum requirement was not satisfied, the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded; Stryker may refile a supported motion on remand.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff’s choice of U.S. forum gets substantial deference	Abramge needed U.S. forum and should get deference despite foreign status	Michigan is inconvenient; Abramge is a foreign plaintiff so little deference warranted	Court: Little deference appropriate given Abramge’s weak U.S. ties; no abuse of discretion in that part of analysis
Whether Brazil is an available alternative forum	Brazil may be inadequate to adjudicate complex tort/corporate claims; Abramge needs a forum that can provide remedy	Stryker consents to jurisdiction in Brazil; thus Brazil is available	Held: Stryker failed to prove availability—an attorney’s statement is not evidence and no affidavits/experts showed Brazilian courts could exercise jurisdiction or provide remedy
Whether Brazil is an adequate alternative forum (i.e., can provide remedy)	Brazilian law may not recognize Abramge’s causes of action or provide relief	Brazil is adequate; Stryker’s consent suffices	Held: Not shown. Adequacy unproven because record lacks evidence on Brazilian law or remedies
Whether dismissal on forum non conveniens was appropriate overall	Dismissal improper absent proof Brazil is available/adequate	Dismissal proper because Brazil is proper forum	Held: Dismissal reversed and remanded because defendant did not meet threshold of proving available and adequate alternative forum

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (framework for forum non conveniens and reduced deference to foreign plaintiffs)
Hefferan v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc., 828 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2016) (three-step forum non conveniens test applied by Sixth Circuit)
Baumgart v. Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 981 F.2d 824 (5th Cir. 1993) (definition of forum non conveniens)
Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1976) (federal courts’ obligation to exercise jurisdiction)
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (forum non conveniens rarely invoked; presupposes at least two forums)
DRFP, L.L.C. v. Republica Bolivariana de Venez., 622 F.3d 513 (6th Cir. 2010) (requirement that alternative forum be available and adequate)
Duha v. Agrium, Inc., 448 F.3d 867 (6th Cir. 2006) (attorney statements in briefs are not evidence)
Wong v. PartyGaming, Ltd., 589 F.3d 821 (6th Cir. 2009) (availability shown where defendant amenable to process in alternative forum)
Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (deference to plaintiff’s forum choice varies with legitimate reasons vs. forum shopping)
Watson v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 769 F.2d 354 (6th Cir. 1985) (foreign forum not available if it cannot exercise jurisdiction over both parties)