371 F. Supp. 3d 1
D.D.C.2019Background
- Plaintiffs: four Japanese individuals and six business entities (Fukushima) sued GE in Massachusetts for design defects in reactors at Fukushima Daiichi and sought class relief for >150,000 claimants for property and economic losses from the 2011 tsunami/nuclear disaster.
- Core allegation: GE negligently designed/reactors and safety systems (e.g., lowered bluff, unprotected basement generators), causing/exacerbating meltdowns and explosions when the tsunami disabled backup systems.
- Japanese compensation regime: Japan’s Act on Compensation for Nuclear Damage channels liability to TEPCO, provides strict liability, multiple recovery avenues (direct TEPCO claims, ADR Center mediation, lawsuits), and substantial government-backed funding; many claimants have received compensation.
- Procedural posture: GE moved to dismiss on multiple grounds, including forum non conveniens; the court assumed jurisdiction but evaluated dismissal primarily under forum non conveniens.
- Disposition: Court granted GE’s motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, finding Japan an adequate and substantially more appropriate forum given private and public interest factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequate alternative forum | Japan is inadequate because Plaintiffs cannot sue GE there and need remedy directly against GE | Japan is adequate: plaintiffs can obtain full remedies via TEPCO claims, ADR Center, or lawsuits under the Act | Japan is an adequate alternative forum despite GE not being directly liable there; remedies through TEPCO are not "basically unjust" |
| Access to evidence & witnesses | Some GE design/maintenance evidence is in U.S.; Massachusetts can adjudicate | Key evidence, witnesses, and documents are in Japan; U.S. courts cannot easily compel Japanese third-party evidence/witnesses | Private factors favor Japan: difficulty obtaining Japanese evidence and compulsory process supports dismissal |
| Ability to implead third parties & enforceability | Need to adjudicate GE here to join all responsible parties; U.S. forum better enforces judgments against GE | Implading TEPCO/Toshiba/Hitachi/Japan is likely impracticable in U.S.; Japanese forum better suited for apportionment and claims against operator | Impleader problems and uncertainty over jurisdiction of Japanese entities favor dismissal; enforceability of U.S. judgment neutral |
| Public interest, choice of law, and local interest | U.S. forum appropriate; GE is a U.S. corporation and reactors exist in U.S. | Japan has overwhelming local interest; tort occurred in Japan and Japanese law likely applies; adjudication would burden the court | Public factors favor Japan: stronger Japanese interest, foreign-law issues, and court congestion support dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Vivendi SA v. T-Mobile USA Inc., 586 F.3d 689 (9th Cir.) (standard for motion-stage factual drawing)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S.) (adequate alternative forum inquiry and limits on weighing foreign substantive law differences)
- Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (U.S.) (forum non conveniens dismissal may precede jurisdictional rulings)
- Iragorri v. Int'l Elevator, Inc., 203 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.) (defendant’s burden: adequate forum and strong balance of private/public factors for dismissal)
- Mercier v. Sheraton Int'l, Inc., 981 F.2d 1345 (1st Cir.) (forum non conveniens framework and factors)
- Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir.) (administrative compensation schemes can render an alternative forum adequate)
- Cooper v. Tokyo Elec. Power Co., 860 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir.) (FNPP-related jurisdictional/choice-of-law considerations)