Erwin Ex Rel. Erwin v. Motorola, Inc.
408 Ill. App. 3d 261
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Erwin and Garrison, both minors, sue Motorola, Inc. in Illinois for in utero birth defects allegedly caused by parental exposure to ethylene glycol ethers in Motorola's clean rooms.
- Motorola moved to dismiss under forum non conveniens in favor of Travis County, Texas; circuit court denied the motion and allowed Illinois as proper forum.
- The interlocutory appeal was taken under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2); the record relied on Motorola's supporting record with affidavits and limited discovery.
- Discovery established Motorola's corporate headquarters in Illinois, with some witnesses and events centered in Texas, Arizona, and Illinois; plaintiffs resided and were treated in Texas and Arizona.
- Evidence showed disputed control over safety policies: corporate headquarters in Illinois versus Phoenix/Austin facilities; witnesses and health-safety decisions potentially located nationwide.
- The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of forum non conveniens, balancing private and public factors and deference to the plaintiffs’ chosen Illinois forum.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court properly balanced private/public factors. | Erwin/Harission argue Illinois forum appropriate. | Motorola contends factors strongly favor Texas. | No abuse; factors do not strongly favor transfer. |
| Whether the private factors favored transfer due to witness location and subpoena power. | Witnesses are scattered; Illinois witnesses numerous; compulsory process not decisively unfavorable. | Key witnesses and records located out of Illinois; subpoena power undermines Illinois forum. | Private factors do not compel transfer; evidence shows no single forum favored. |
| Whether Illinois has an adequate public interest to retain the case. | Illinois has interest due to corporate headquarters and witnesses; local decision-making relevance. | Public interest favors Texas to avoid applying foreign law; Illinois has little connection. | Illinois public interest supported retaining the case; not outweighed by Texas. |
| Whether the court properly treated the choice-of-law implication in a forum non conveniens context. | Choice of law not dispositive and Illinois could apply foreign law if needed. | If transferred, Illinois would have to apply foreign law; burden unjust. | Choice-of-law consideration did not mandate transfer; court could apply foreign law if needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill.2d 511 (2002) (forum non conveniens balancing; deference to plaintiff's forum)
- Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill.2d 167 (2003) (exceptional circumstances for forum non conveniens)
- Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill.2d 430 (2006) (totality of factors; not any single factor controlling)
- Vivas v. Boeing Co., 392 Ill.App.3d 644 (2009) (witnesses scattered; congestion factor not dispositive)
- Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 217 Ill.2d 158 (2005) (context for balancing factors in forum issues)