2018 IL App (1st) 180377
Ill. App. Ct.2018Background
- Two children (Cody Benedict in Missouri and Addison Hand in Colorado) sued Abbott Laboratories alleging prenatal exposure to Depakote caused neural tube/spina bifida defects and that Abbott failed to warn and misrepresented risks.
- Plaintiffs filed in Cook County, Illinois; Abbott is headquartered in Lake County, Illinois (principal place of business) and admits venue in Cook County but moved on forum non conveniens grounds to dismiss for refiling in plaintiffs’ home states or, alternatively, to transfer to Lake County.
- Abbott argued most fact witnesses, treating physicians, and records are located in Missouri and Colorado; plaintiffs emphasized Abbott’s labeling/marketing decisions occurred in Illinois.
- The trial court denied Abbott’s forum non conveniens motion and its motion to transfer to Lake County, finding Illinois has a significant interest and that private and public factors did not favor transfer.
- Abbott petitioned for leave to appeal the interlocutory denial under Ill. S. Ct. R. 306; the appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forum non conveniens requires dismissal for refiling in plaintiffs’ home states (interstate transfer) | Plaintiffs: Cook County is proper because Abbott’s relevant labeling/marketing decisions occurred in Illinois; plaintiffs’ choice deserves some deference | Abbott: Illinois is inconvenient; key witnesses, medical records, and plaintiffs reside out-of-state; dismissal for refiling in Missouri/Colorado is appropriate | Denied — court found plaintiffs’ choice entitled to some deference, Illinois has significant interest, documentary evidence and witnesses can be managed; defendant failed to meet burden to show transfer warranted |
| Whether to transfer intrastate from Cook County to Lake County | Plaintiffs: No strong reason; Cook County appropriate given corporate contacts | Abbott: Headquarters in Lake County makes Lake County more convenient | Denied — Lake County is adjacent, practical problems minimal, and Abbott’s HQ in Illinois undercuts its inconvenience argument |
| Weight of out-of-state treating physicians and records in forum analysis | Plaintiffs: Such factors are less significant given modern document transfer and deposition rules; Illinois can handle physician evidence | Abbott: Treating physicians and records are primarily in Missouri/Colorado and unavailable for trial in Illinois | Held for plaintiffs — location of documents/physicians not dispositive; Rule 212(b) and Rule 215 minimize impact and defendant did not identify unwilling witnesses by name |
| Effect of choice-of-law and defendant’s prior litigation history | Plaintiffs: Choice-of-law premature and not shown to affect outcome; prior litigation history is case-specific and not dispositive | Abbott: Missouri/Colorado law applies and prior litigation experience favors transfer | Denied — choice-of-law not shown to be outcome-determinative; Illinois competent to apply foreign law if needed; past litigation experience given little weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430 (discusses standard and deference in forum non conveniens analysis)
- Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167 (forum non conveniens burden on movant and factors to weigh)
- Guerine v. First American Bank, 198 Ill. 2d 511 (plaintiff’s choice of forum and public interest factors)
- Vivas v. Boeing Co., 392 Ill. App. 3d 644 (importance of product-design witnesses and diminished weight of documentary-location in modern era)
- Erwin v. Motorola, Inc., 408 Ill. App. 3d 261 (movant must identify specific witnesses unwilling to testify; burden on movant)
- Woodward v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 368 Ill. App. 3d 827 (product-liability cases are not inherently local; courts may consider corporate ties to forum)