Gutierrez v. Advanced Medical Optics, Inc., 640 F.3d 1025

Plaintiffs, elderly residents of Monterrey, Mexico, suffered grievous eye injuries after cataract surgery in Nuevo Leon in Oct 2007.
Plaintiffs allege defects in Defendant Advanced Medical Optics' Healon viscoelastic product used in all surgeries, with batches later found infected.
Plaintiffs initially sued in the Central District of California; the district court dismissed on forum non convinies due to Mexico being an adequate alternative forum.
Dismissal did not include any return-jurisdiction or conditions on dismissal.
During the appeal, Plaintiffs filed suit in Mexico; Mexican courts ultimately declined jurisdiction, a decision affirmed on appeal and by an Amparo proceeding in Mexico.
The Ninth Circuit vacates and remands to reconsider the district court’s dismissal in light of intervening developments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Mexico an adequate alternative forum at dismissal?	Gutierrez argues Mexico was not available.	Advanced Medical Optics asserts Mexico was available because it could submit to jurisdiction.	Mexico was an available forum; remand required for new facts.
Should the district court have imposed conditions or a return-jurisdiction clause?	Plaintiffs contend district court erred by not conditioning dismissal.	Defendant agrees to Mexican jurisdiction; no per se requirement to impose conditions.	Discretionary; not a per se abuse to omit conditions.
Do intervening developments in Mexico require remand for updated forum non conveniens analysis?	Not explicitly stated here; challenge to initial ruling based on later events.	Not explicitly stated here; rely on initial analysis.	Remand appropriate to consider updated information about Mexican jurisdiction and conduct.

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 F.3d 235 (U.S. 1981) (forum non conveniens requires adequate forum and private/public interest balance)
Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2001) (burden on defendant to show existence of adequate alternative forum)
Dole Food Co. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2002) (forum non conveniens is an exceptional tool to be used sparingly)
Leetsch v. Freedman, 260 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir. 2001) (discretion to impose conditions on dismissal; return-jurisdiction clause not per se abuse)
Cariajano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 626 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2010) (considering justifiable reasons to doubt cooperation in the foreign forum)
In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 420 F.3d 702 (7th Cir. 2005) (remand used when intervening developments could affect forum availability; cautionary guidance)
Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2009) (tectonic changes in foreign jurisdiction may warrant remand)
Bank of Credit & Commerce Int'l (Overseas) Ltd. v. State Bank of Pakistan, 273 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2001) (remand when new local law enacted; objective events can affect forum)