Jiali Tang v. SYNUTRA INTERN., INC.
656 F.3d 242
4th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are Chinese citizens/residents who allege injuries from melamine-contaminated infant formula manufactured/distributed in China by Sheng Yuan/Synutra.
- Contaminated products were sold exclusively in China; Synutra has Maryland roots but the conduct and products at issue occurred in China.
- China established a Fund to compensate affected children; plaintiffs either accepted Fund compensation or filed in China; some cases were accepted there, others delayed.
- Plaintiffs filed suit in Maryland, alleging various claims against Synutra; Synutra moved to dismiss under forum non conveniens, arguing China is a more convenient forum.
- District court held China available and adequate, and weighed public/private interests, dismissing the case; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was an adequate alternative forum shown? | Tang argued Synutra failed to prove adequacy of China. | Synutra showed China is available and adequate via Fund and Chinese courts. | China is adequate; appeal rejected. |
| Did the district court properly allocate burden of proof? | Plaintiffs claim district court shifted burden to them on adequacy. | Court placed burden on Synutra at all stages and correctly analyzed availability/adequacy. | No abuse of discretion; burden properly allocated. |
| Is the Fund a valid alternative remedy to judicial relief in China? | Fund is not a substitute for a judicial remedy and undermines adequacy. | Fund constitutes a valid alternative remedy; forum non conveniens not limited to judicial relief. | Fund is a valid adequate alternative remedy. |
| Were public/private interest factors weighed properly? | Maryland has interest; conduct occurred in China. | Public/private factors favor China due to witnesses, proof sources, and governing law issues. | District court did not abuse discretion; China favored. |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (framework: available, adequate, then weigh private/public factors)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (private/public interest factors in forum non conveniens)
- Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (1947) (test for available/adequate forum and weighing framework)
- Mercier v. Sheraton Int'l, Inc., 935 F.2d 419 (1st Cir.1991) (adequacy of foreign forum and available remedies)
- Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir.2001) (administrative/remedial alternative as adequate remedy)
- Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 (11th Cir.2001) (burden of production on adequacy; ultimate persuasion on corruption/delay)
- Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724 (4th Cir.2010) (burden allocation in forum non conveniens analysis)
- Nemariam v. Fed. Democratic Republic of Ethi., 315 F.3d 390 (D.C.Cir.2003) (evaluating prospective remedies and adequacy of international mechanisms)
- Mercier v. Sheraton Int'l, Inc., 935 F.2d 419 (1st Cir.1991) (reaffirming adequacy analysis in forum non conveniens)