Deb v. Sirva, Inc.
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 14803
| 7th Cir. | 2016Background
- Deb, a Canadian resident, contracted in India with Allied Lemuir to ship household goods (including valuable originals) from Calcutta to Newfoundland; the goods never left India and Allied Lemuir later sold them for unpaid charges.
- Deb sued Allied Canada in Newfoundland (2010) and later sued two U.S. companies, SIRVA, Inc. and Allied Van Lines, Inc., in Indiana federal court alleging they were joint venturers with Allied Lemuir and thus liable for the loss.
- Defendants removed the Indiana action to federal court and moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(3), 12(b)(6), and 12(b)(7), principally seeking dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, asserting India (and Canada) were adequate alternative fora.
- The district court granted dismissal under forum non conveniens, finding India and Canada were available alternative forums; Deb appealed challenging the dismissal and the court’s allocation of the defendants’ burden.
- The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the district court abused its discretion by failing to require defendants to meet their burden to show an available and adequate alternate forum (particularly India) before dismissing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal for forum non conveniens was proper because India is an available forum | Deb: Defendants failed to show they would be subject to Indian jurisdiction and thus India is not an available forum for claims against SIRVA/Allied Van Lines | Defs: India is an adequate/available forum; Indian courts could exercise jurisdiction (based on alleged affiliation with Allied Lemuir) | Court: Reversed — defendants failed to carry their burden to demonstrate India was available; district court erred in relying on belief without evidence |
| Standard/burden for proving alternative forum availability/adequacy | Deb: Burden rests on defendants and is heavy; plaintiff’s allegations should be taken as true absent contradictory evidence | Defs: Pointed to marketing materials and asserted jurisdictional possibility; also denied any affiliation with Allied Lemuir in briefing | Held: Defendants bear burden and must provide evidence (concession, affidavits, expert proof); conclusory assertions or denial of affiliation are insufficient |
| Proper use of Rule 12(b)(3) evidence when venue facts are disputed | Deb: Where dismissal would dramatically affect forum choice, disputed facts should not be resolved against plaintiff without an opportunity to be heard | Defs: Relied on pleadings and cited precedent suggesting district court may believe foreign jurisdiction exists | Held: District court may look beyond pleadings under Rule 12(b)(3) but must not resolve disputed venue facts against plaintiff without evidence; here court failed to require defendants’ proof |
| Whether Canada was a proper alternative forum or required Colorado River analysis | Deb: Canadian suit exists but defendants did not demonstrate they are subject to jurisdiction there or whether suits are parallel | Defs: Asserted Canada as possible forum (largely via Colorado River/abstention arguments) | Held: District court did not adequately analyze Canada under forum non conveniens or Colorado River standards; defendants waived undeveloped arguments; remand required |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (U.S. 2007) (forum non conveniens doctrine applies in federal courts only when alternative forum is foreign and defendants bear burden to show availability/adequacy)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (forum non conveniens dismissal is discretionary and only when balance strongly favors defendant)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (forum non conveniens is exceptional and plaintiffs’ forum choice should rarely be disturbed)
- Fischer v. Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt., 777 F.3d 847 (7th Cir. 2015) (forum non conveniens inquiry requires showing alternate forum availability then balancing private/public interests)
- In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Prods. Litig., 484 F.3d 951 (7th Cir. 2007) (defendants must present evidence or concede jurisdiction to prove foreign forum availability)
- Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., 108 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 1997) (availability requires parties be amenable to process and within forum’s jurisdiction; evidence may include consent and expert affidavits)
- Schertenleib v. Traum, 589 F.2d 1156 (2d Cir. 1978) (district court should have a justifiable belief, supported by evidence such as concession or expert testimony, that foreign forum will take jurisdiction before dismissal)