Charles v. QVC, INC
2:24-cv-06703
E.D. Pa.Jun 10, 2025Background
- Dianne Charles, a citizen of Trinidad and Tobago, suffered serious injuries when a pressure cooker exploded while she was using it in Trinidad.
- The product was sold by QVC, Inc. (based in Pennsylvania), and manufactured for Salton, Inc. (now merged with Spectrum Brands, Inc.). Both corporate defendants are U.S. entities.
- Charles brought a product liability suit against QVC and Spectrum Brands in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that Trinidad is a more appropriate and convenient forum as the incident and harm occurred there.
- Defendants consented to Trinidadian jurisdiction and argued that damages evidence would only be available in Trinidad, while liability evidence is located in the U.S. and China.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of Alternative Forum | Trinidad provides less favorable law but permits claims for negligence and misrepresentation | Trinidad is adequate and recognizes relevant claims | Trinidad is an adequate alternative forum |
| Deference to Plaintiff's Choice of Forum | Chose PA for convenience; ties with QVC's location and conduct | Plaintiff’s foreign status merits less deference | Some deference given due to substantial U.S./PA ties |
| Private Interest Factors (evidence/witnesses) | Most liability evidence is in the U.S.; will produce Trinidadian witnesses in PA | Damages/medical evidence is in Trinidad; litigation there is easier | U.S. is more convenient overall; factors don’t warrant dismissal |
| Public Interest Factors (forum’s interest, etc.) | PA/US has interest in conduct of local corporations marketing dangerous products | Trinidad’s interest is strongest as victim is its resident | Both interests matter; PA’s is substantial; no reason to dismiss |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (explains the forum non conveniens analysis and the presumption in favor of plaintiff’s forum choice)
- Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1947) (describes burden on defendant to show oppression or vexation in forum non conveniens)
- Windt v. Qwest Commc'ns Int'l, Inc., 529 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008) (details the three-step forum non conveniens analysis)
- Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 886 F.2d 628 (3d Cir. 1989) (addresses deference to foreign plaintiff’s forum choice and the role of convenience)
- Trotter v. 7R Holdings LLC, 873 F.3d 435 (3d Cir. 2017) (confirms defendant’s significant burden to justify forum non conveniens dismissal)