DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and Johnson & Johnson v. Travis Brown
2015 Ind. LEXIS 319
| Ind. | 2015Background
- DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. is an Indiana corporation with its principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana; it designed and sold the ASR XL Acetabular System prosthetic hip implant from 2005–2010.
- Plaintiffs are nineteen individuals who had the ASR XL System implanted (eighteen in Virginia, one in Mississippi) and sued in Marion Superior Court for negligence, breach of warranties, and fraudulent concealment after a voluntary recall.
- DePuy moved to transfer venue under Trial Rule 4.4(C) to Virginia and Mississippi on forum non conveniens grounds; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the trial court abused its discretion; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to address the issue and affirm.
- The Supreme Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 4.4(C); there is substantial evidence supporting Indiana as the forum, but the court granted transfer to proceed under the petition and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court properly denied forum non conveniens under TR 4.4(C). | Brown argues Indiana is appropriate due to local injury and plaintiffs’ forum preference. | DePuy argues Virginia/Mississippi are the proper fora due to convenience and differing laws. | No abuse of discretion; Indiana remains an appropriate forum. |
| Whether the trial court sufficiently considered the enumerated TR 4.4(C) factors. | plaintiffs contend factors favor transfer to Virginia/Mississippi. | DePuy contends factors support dismissal and transfer. | Trial court’s consideration was adequate under the permissive factors. |
| Whether the trial court should have granted the transfer petition. | Plaintiffs maintain transfer to Virginia/Mississippi better serves convenience and fairness. | Defendant asserts stronger interests in Indiana. | Court affirmed the trial court’s discretion not to transfer as to denial, given evidence supporting Indiana. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anyango v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 971 N.E.2d 654 (Ind. 2012) (trial court discretion under 4.4(C))
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (U.S. 1947) (presumption in favor of plaintiff's chosen forum; balance not strongly in defendant's favor)
- Inman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 981 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 2012) (abuse of discretion standard applied to discretionary rulings)
- Wright v. Miller, 989 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard; evaluate trial court’s reasons)
- Anyango v. Rolls-Royce Corp., 971 N.E.2d 658 (Ind. 2012) (distinguishes foreign plaintiffs’ presumptions in forum analysis)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Desert Palace, Inc., 882 N.E.2d 743 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (manifest interest of forum; ease of applying law)