Charles v. QVC, INC, 2:24-cv-06703

Dianne Charles, a resident of Trinidad and Tobago, suffered severe burns when a pressure cooker, distributed by QVC, Inc. and Spectrum Brands, Inc., exploded during use.
The pressure cooker was manufactured in China, sold by Salton (now Spectrum Brands), shipped to Florida, and then taken to Trinidad as a gift; it was marketed and sold on QVC's Pennsylvania-based network.
Charles claims the product was defectively designed, failed to comply with UL industry standards, and was misrepresented as safe.
She brought suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserting strict liability, negligence, and misrepresentation claims.
Defendants, both U.S. corporations, moved to dismiss under the forum non conveniens doctrine, arguing Trinidad is a more appropriate forum as the injury and damages evidence are located there.
The court must decide whether to override the plaintiff’s choice of U.S. forum and dismiss in favor of litigation in Trinidad.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adequacy of Alternative Forum	Trinidad's law is less favorable but provides remedies; defendants must demonstrate it is clearly inadequate	Trinidad is adequate; they consent to jurisdiction and will comply with Trinidadian procedures	Trinidad is adequate as an alternative forum
Deference to Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum	Choice of U.S. forum based on convenience, as key evidence and defendants are U.S.-based	Less deference due to plaintiff’s foreign residence; case has limited ties to Pennsylvania	Somewhat reduced deference, but substantial ties to PA support plaintiff's choice
Private Interest Factors	Most liability evidence is in U.S. (Spectrum documents, QVC marketing); willing to provide key Trinidadian witnesses in U.S.	Damages evidence and relevant witnesses are in Trinidad; difficulty compelling Trinidadian testimony	Liability evidence outweighs damages evidence; more convenient to litigate in PA
Public Interest Factors	PA has interest in regulating safety of products distributed from here; unfair to burden Trinidad with U.S. corporate conduct	Trinidad’s interest in redressing injury to its citizen; little conduct occurred in PA	Pennsylvania has significant interest; public interest factors do not support dismissal

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (sets forth the modern test for forum non conveniens dismissals)
Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (1947) (defines standards for disturbing plaintiff’s forum selection)
Windt v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 529 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008) (summarizes private and public interest factors for forum non conveniens)
Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 886 F.2d 628 (3d Cir. 1989) (discusses deference to foreign plaintiff’s forum choice)