10 N.E.3d 567
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- DePuy Orthopaedics (subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson) manufactured/marketed the ASR™ XL hip system; design/manufacture occurred in Leeds, England, with U.S. operations in Warsaw, Indiana.
- Nineteen plaintiffs from Virginia and Mississippi received ASR™ XL implants (surgeries in VA or MS); DePuy issued a global recall in 2010 and plaintiffs sued in Marion County, Indiana in 2012 for negligence, warranty and fraudulent concealment.
- DePuy moved to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 4.4(C) (forum non conveniens) and stipulated it would submit to jurisdiction in Virginia or Mississippi and waive statute-of-limitations defenses there.
- Trial court summarily denied the motion; DePuy obtained interlocutory appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals applied the private/public interest balancing framework (informed by Piper Aircraft v. Reyno and T.R. 4.4(C)) and found most key witnesses, plaintiffs, and applicable law located in VA/MS rather than Indiana.
- Court concluded conflict-of-law differences (notably strict liability availability) and witness convenience/compulsory-process issues favored dismissal to Virginia or Mississippi; it reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss for refiling in VA or MS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying DePuy’s T.R. 4.4(C) forum non conveniens motion | Indiana is a permissible forum with personal jurisdiction over DePuy; video depositions and modern discovery cure inconvenience | Litigation in Indiana is inconvenient: plaintiffs, treating physicians, and evidence are in VA/MS; DePuy waived jurisdictional/statute defenses in those states | Reversed: trial court abused discretion; dismissal ordered for refiling in VA or MS |
| Effect of DePuy’s stipulation to submit to VA/MS jurisdiction | Irrelevant; Indiana retains forum because plaintiff chose it | Stipulation removes jurisdictional obstacle and weighs in favor of dismissal | Stipulation favored dismissal—absence of jurisdiction is not an issue, so T.R. 4.4(C)(1) supports dismissal |
| Whether inconvenience and witness availability justify dismissal | Video depositions and travel mitigate inconvenience; desire for earlier Indiana trial date | Majority of nonparty witnesses and plaintiffs are in VA/MS; compulsory process and costs favor those fora | Convenience of parties and witnesses favors dismissal under T.R. 4.4(C)(2) |
| Choice-of-law impact on forum selection | Indiana courts can apply VA/MS law; plaintiffs need an earlier trial | Significant differences (e.g., strict liability availability) could affect outcome; local familiarity favors home states | Choice-of-law differences are substantial and favor adjudication in VA or MS under T.R. 4.4(C)(3) |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (forum non conveniens balancing; substantive-law differences alone do not defeat dismissal)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (public and private interest factors for forum non conveniens)
- Anyango v. Rolls‑Royce Corp., 971 N.E.2d 654 (Ind. 2012) (standards for reviewing T.R. 4.4(C) motions)
- Employers Ins. of Wausau v. RFC, 716 N.E.2d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (purpose of T.R. 4.4(C): permit transfer when litigation in Indiana would be so inconvenient that substantial injustice is likely)