Galbert Ex Rel. Estate of Massal v. West Caribbean Airways
715 F.3d 1290
| 11th Cir. | 2013Background
- Baptes appeal the district court's November 2007 order dismissing their Montreal Convention claims on forum non conveniens grounds.
- The FNC order directed filing in Martinique, France, because France was deemed an unavailable forum.
- Plaintiffs filed the underlying action in the Southern District of Florida under the Montreal Convention, which also allows Martinique.
- The district court held Martinique an adequate alternative forum and weighed private/public factors in favor of dismissal.
- This Court affirmed in 2009, holding the Montreal Convention does not preclude FNC and Martinique could be the preferred forum; petitioners later sought rehearing and went to the Supreme Court, which denied certiorari.
- Baptes later pursued related actions in Martinique; French courts held unavailability then Cassation ruled French courts precluded ruling since suit was originally filed in Florida; in 2012, Baptes moved to vacate under Rule 60(b)(6), which the district court denied; the appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Cassation’s ruling about availability of Martinique a basis for Rule 60(b)(6) relief? | Baptes argue Cassation renders Martinique unavailable. | Defendants contend Cassation does not render Martinique unavailable as an alternate forum. | No; Cassation ruling not sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief. |
| Did Baptes fail to raise unavailability during the Florida proceedings, undermining Rule 60(b)(6) relief? | Baptes argued unavailability in district court post-Cassation; should warrant relief. | Baptes failed to raise unavailability in the Florida proceedings; not extraordinary. | Yes; failure to raise in the initial opposition bars relief. |
| Does law-of-the-case and previous affirmance preclude vacatur under Rule 60(b)(6)? | Previous rulings support vacatur due to unavailability. | Law-of-the-case and prior affirmance keep FNC ruling intact. | No; law-of-the-case does not compel relief; no extraordinary circumstances. |
| May the Court consider the Cassation ruling to modify the forum-disposition already adjudicated? | Cassation changes forum availability; warrants reconsideration. | Reconsideration not justified under Rule 60(b)(6) without extraordinary circumstances. | Not warranted; denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Seven Elves, Inc. v. Eskenazi, 635 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. 1981) (abuse of discretion standard for Rule 60(b) relief; ‘extraordinary’ circumstances required)
- Ritter v. Smith, 811 F.2d 1398 (11th Cir. 1987) (Rule 60(b)(6) catch-all relief; requires extraordinary circumstances)
- Cano v. Baker, 435 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2006) (movant must show extraordinary circumstances for relief)
- Griffin v. Swim-Tech Corp., 722 F.2d 677 (11th Cir. 1984) (quotes requiring extraordinary hardship for Rule 60(b)(6))
- Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir. 2001) (factors for forum non conveniens analysis; adequacy of alternate forum; convenience)