Palacios v. Coca-Cola Co.
499 F. App'x 54
2d Cir.2012Background
- Palacios and colleagues allege Coca‑Cola facilitated violence and intimidation against them for union activities at Guatemalan plants.
- District court dismissed the case on forum non conveniens grounds with a conditional reinstatement possibility if Guatemala’s highest court affirmed lack of jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs refiled in a Guatemalan trial court; that court dismissed for want of jurisdiction, and plaintiffs chose not to appeal.
- Plaintiffs then moved in district court to reinstate the action under Rule 60, arguing the conditional dismissal should be lifted.
- The district court conditioned reinstatement on Guatemala’s highest court affirming the foreign forum’s lack of jurisdiction, which did not occur.
- Court reviews the Rule 60 motion for abuse of discretion and the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ conduct under Rule 60(b)/(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reinstatement was proper under Rule 60 after a conditional forum non conveniens dismissal | Palacios argues reinstatement should be allowed given the conditional dismissal. | Coca‑Cola contends the condition was not met and relief under Rule 60 is unavailable. | No; reinstatement not allowed; condition not satisfied. |
| Adequacy of the alternative forum and its ability to hear the case | Plaintiffs assert Guatemala would hear the case. | District court found Guatemala’s forum not definitively adequate. | Alternative forum not sufficiently demonstrated as adequate. |
| Effect of plaintiffs’ own actions on eligibility for Rule 60 relief | Plaintiffs contend their choice not to appeal was reasonable for relief. | Their deliberate choices bar relief under Rule 60(b)/(d). | Plaintiffs’ own conduct bars relief under Rule 60. |
| Whether the district court properly applied the “extreme hardship” or “grave miscarriage” exceptions | Plaintiffs seek relief on extremes of hardship or miscarriage. | The strict standard was not met given unilateral procedural failures. | Standard not satisfied; relief denied. |
| Standard of review and legal framework for reviewing forum non conveniens reinstatement decisions | N/A | N/A | Abuse of discretion review; de novo on foreign-law issues; three-step forum analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mendes Junior Int’l Co. v. Banco Do Brasil S.A., 394 F. App’x 787 (2d Cir. 2010) (review of Rule 60 reinstatement following forum non conveniens dismissal; abuse of discretion standard stated)
- Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724 (2d Cir. 1998) (three-step forum non conveniens analysis; deference to plaintiff’s forum choice)
- Aguinda v. Texaco, Inc., 303 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2002) (condition that reinstatement be conditioned on foreign forum’s jurisdictional ruling affirmed by highest court)
- Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2004) (extreme hardship standard for Rule 60 relief; grave miscarriage concept)
- United States v. Bank of N.Y., 14 F.3d 756 (2d Cir. 1994) (conscious and informed choice of litigation strategy bars relief)