Michelle Trotter v. 7R Holdings LLC
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19917
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Michelle Trotter, a U.S. citizen and hired chef, alleged she was injured on December 24, 2012 while descending stairs from the yacht M/Y Olga to a dock at Scrub Island in the British Virgin Islands (BVI).
- Defendants: 7R Holdings, LLC (Puerto Rico principal place of business), Luis Rubi (director), and M/Y Olga (BVI-flagged/yacht owner). Captain Calot hired Trotter while in Puerto Rico/Florida; Trotter boarded in St. Thomas (USVI).
- Trotter sued in the District Court of the Virgin Islands under the Jones Act and general maritime law (unseaworthiness, negligence, maintenance and cure).
- Defendants moved to dismiss under forum non conveniens; the District Court granted the motion, finding the BVI an adequate alternative forum and that the balance of private and public interest factors favored dismissal.
- Trotter appealed, arguing (1) the district court erred by not conducting a choice-of-law analysis before dismissing, and (2) the district court abused its discretion in granting forum non conveniens dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court must decide choice of law (i.e., whether U.S. law applies) before dismissing on forum non conveniens in a Jones Act/maritime case | Trotter: Jones Act implicates special venue/choice-of-law concerns; court must determine applicability of U.S. law before dismissal | Defendants: Piper presumption controls; no special-venue protection now because Congress repealed the Jones Act’s special venue provision in 2008 | Court: No; Piper’s presumption applies. Neither exception (inadequate remedy or special venue) applies, so no antecedent choice-of-law determination required |
| Whether the BVI is an adequate alternative forum | Trotter: BVI lacks jurisdiction over defendants and BVI law may not provide comparable causes of action (e.g., Jones Act/unseaworthiness/maintenance and cure protections) | Defendants: They stipulated to submit to BVI jurisdiction; BVI courts have similar procedures and will recognize negligence claims | Court: BVI is adequate. Defendants’ stipulation is binding for forum analysis and BVI law provides a remedy; not clearly inadequate |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in balancing private interest factors | Trotter: District Court misweighed factors and failed to consider certain factors favoring USVI (deference to plaintiff’s choice as U.S. citizen, access to U.S. law and remedies) | Defendants: Private factors (witnesses, evidence, location of accident) favor BVI; trial in USVI would be costly and inconvenient | Court: No abuse. District Court reasonably found private factors favored dismissal (no key USVI witnesses; evidence located in BVI) |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in balancing public interest factors | Trotter: Public factors and application of U.S. maritime law should weigh against dismissal | Defendants: Public factors (jury burden, court familiarity, local interest) favor BVI given foreign locus and evidence | Court: No abuse. District Court reasonably found public interest favored alternate forum or were neutral; uncertainty about choice of law led to withholding heavy weight on that factor |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (Sup. Ct.) (forum non conveniens presumption: possibility of change in substantive law ordinarily should not be given substantial weight)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (Sup. Ct.) (foundational exposition of forum non conveniens factors and discretion)
- Eurofins Pharma US Holdings v. BioAlliance Pharma SA, 623 F.3d 147 (3d Cir.) (framework: determine adequate alternative forum then balance deference and interests)
- Kernan v. American Dredging Co., 355 U.S. 426 (Sup. Ct.) (Jones Act enacted to provide liberal recovery for injured seamen)
- Pure Oil Co. v. Suarez, 384 U.S. 202 (Sup. Ct.) (interpretation of Jones Act venue as special venue provision prior to amendment)
- Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Kepner, 314 U.S. 44 (Sup. Ct.) (Congressional venue provisions can limit forum non conveniens dismissal)
- United States v. National City Lines, 334 U.S. 573 (Sup. Ct.) (similar holding that special venue can preclude forum non conveniens dismissal)
- Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 862 F.2d 38 (3d Cir.) (reversal where conditional dismissal could not secure access to proof located in U.S.)
- Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 886 F.2d 628 (3d Cir.) (forum non conveniens reversal for misweighing private and public interests)
- DeMateos v. Texaco, 562 F.2d 895 (3d Cir.) (earlier Third Circuit discussion of Jones Act venue/choice-of-law issues)
- EF Operating Corp. v. American Buildings Co., 993 F.2d 1046 (3d Cir.) (representations in briefs can be binding/judicial estoppel)
- Maniscalco v. Brother Int’l (USA) Corp., 709 F.3d 202 (3d Cir.) (standard of review — de novo for legal questions)
- Kisano Trade & Invest Ltd. v. Lemster, 737 F.3d 869 (3d Cir.) (standard of review — abuse of discretion for forum non conveniens decisions)