792 F. Supp. 2d 1090
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- This MDL involves Air France Flight 447 crash liability and forum decisions.
- Plaintiffs are non-French foreign plaintiffs who re-filed Dardengo and Guennoon actions after a prior dismissal for forum non conveniens.
- Defendants are U.S. component manufacturers and related entities; French Defendants were dropped from the new actions.
- Court had previously dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds; plaintiffs seek reconsideration and argue France is unavailable.
- Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss and denies plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, holding the United States is not the proper forum.
- Court addresses availability of France as an alternative forum and the propriety of additional dismissal conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can plaintiffs render France unavailable by omitting French defendants? | Dardengo/Guennoon pleadings show France unavailable | Omission of French defendants should not defeat dismissal | Dismissal granted; France unavailable due to plaintiffs' conduct |
| Is there meaningful new evidence justifying re-filing to defeat prior forum order? | New liability evidence warrants re-filing in U.S. | No new material liability changes; re-filing improper | Dismissal upheld; no basis to re-file here to defeat prior order |
| Are plaintiffs' arguments of good faith compelling? | Plaintiffs acted in good faith and transparently | Good faith is not the test for dismissal | Arguments not compelling; dismissal still proper |
| Is France an available forum for the dispute? | France may not be available due to jurisdictional concerns | France is an available forum; litigation could proceed there | France is available; dismissal appropriate on forum non conveniens grounds |
| Should the court impose additional dismissal conditions? | Ask for conditions including Brazil dismissal | Conditions unnecessary or duplicative | No additional conditions imposed; Brazil analysis not undertaken here |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Compania Naviera Joanna S.A. v. Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster NV, 569 F.3d 189 (4th Cir.2009) (courts cannot allow plaintiffs to bootstrap unavailable foreign forum through design)
- Castillo v. Shipping Corp. of India, 606 F. Supp. 497 (S.D.N.Y.1985) (rejects unavailability when caused by plaintiff’s missed deadlines)
- Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir.2001) (availability focuses on whether a foreign remedy exists, not exact suit)
- Phoenix Canada Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 78 F.R.D. 445 (D. Del.1978) (distinguishes unavailable forum when foreign remedy exists but jurisdiction is uncertain)
- Ceramic Corp. of America v. Inka Maritime Corp. Inc., 1 F.3d 947 (9th Cir.1993) (addressed sua sponte dismissals and forum availability considerations)
- Gutierrez v. Advanced Med. Optics, Inc., 640 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir.2011) (good faith and continuation in foreign forum considered in dismissal)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (presumption in favor of foreign forum, deference to plaintiff’s forum choice)
- Dole Food Co., Inc. v. Watts, 303 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir.2002) (need for a strong showing of forum non conveniens factors)