James Herbert v. Vwr International, LLC
686 F. App'x 520
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- James Herbert, a former teacher who lived and worked in Indonesia (1983–1998), sued in Hawaii for asbestos exposure allegedly occurring in Indonesia; Barbara Ellis later moved to substitute as representative of Herbert’s estate.
- Defendant VWR International moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens, arguing Indonesia was the more appropriate forum for witnesses, evidence, and trial.
- The district court granted dismissal, finding private-interest factors (witnesses/evidence) and public-interest factors (Indonesia’s interest, language, and expected speed of trial) favored Indonesia.
- Herbert argued the record lacked specific identification of witnesses or physical evidence in Indonesia, so dismissal was improper.
- The Ninth Circuit majority affirmed, holding the record provided sufficient information to balance interests without requiring highly specific identification of foreign witnesses/evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant needed to identify specific witnesses/evidence in Indonesia to support forum non conveniens dismissal | Herbert: dismissal improper because the record lacks specific identification of Indonesian witnesses and physical evidence | VWR: moving party need not identify witnesses/evidence in exact detail; enough information exists to show relevance of Indonesian sources | Court: No strict specificity required; record (including Herbert’s own declaration and country facts) sufficed to balance interests and support dismissal |
| Whether private-interest factors favor Indonesia | Herbert: private factors don’t favor dismissal absent detailed proof of foreign evidence/witnesses | VWR: witnesses, school records, construction evidence likely in Indonesia and relevant to exposure issues | Court: Private factors favor Indonesia; district court’s inferences re: evidence/witnesses were logical, not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether public-interest factors favor Indonesia | Herbert: public interests don’t outweigh plaintiffs’ chosen forum | VWR: Indonesia has greater interest (location of injury), language issues, and faster disposition | Court: Public-interest factors (Indonesia’s interest, Bahasa language importance, likely faster resolution) favor Indonesia |
| Deference to plaintiff’s choice of forum | Herbert: substantial deference should prevent dismissal absent strong countervailing reasons | VWR: deference outweighed by majority of private/public factors favoring Indonesia | Court: Although deference owed, majority of factors favor Indonesia; dismissal appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (proponent of dismissal need not identify foreign witnesses/evidence with high specificity)
- Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 643 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (moving party not required to identify unavailable witnesses in exact detail when seeking forum non conveniens dismissal)
- Loya v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 583 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussion of balancing private and public interest factors and deference to plaintiff’s forum choice)
- Camejo v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration, 838 F.2d 1374 (5th Cir. 1988) (moving defendant need not submit overly detailed affidavits but must provide enough information for the district court to balance interests)
- United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for abuse of discretion review)