Palacios v. THE COCA-COLA CO.
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123614
| S.D.N.Y. | 2010Background
- Plaintiffs are Guatemalan labor activists and family members alleging violence linked to Coca‑Cola and INCASA in Guatemala.
- Two groups: Palacios Plaintiffs (Palacios and family) and Vicente Plaintiffs (Vicente family) claim injuries including murder, assault, and related harms.
- Coca‑Cola moved to dismiss under forum non conveniens, arguing Guatemala is an adequate alternative forum.
- Guatemala would be the alternative forum; Coca‑Cola consents to process there, and plaintiffs stress U.S. connections and New York as Coca‑Cola’s home district.
- The court applied the three‑part Iragorri framework: deference to forum choice, availability of an adequate alternative forum, and balancing private/public interests.
- Court held Guatemala is an available/adequate forum, and that private and public interest factors favor dismissal for FNC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deference to forum choice | Palacios resided in U.S.; Vicente Plaintiffs domiciled abroad; forum choice deserved substantial deference. | Plaintiffs’ U.S. residence/defendant’s home forum reduce deference; mix of connections weighs intermediate deference. | Plaintiffs’ forum choice given intermediate deference. |
| Adequacy of Guatemala as an alternative forum | Guatemala lacks jurisdiction/remedies and has unsafe procedures. | Guatemala is available/adequate; defendant consents to Guatemala; Guatemalan law provides remedies. | Guatemala is an available and adequate alternative forum. |
| Balance of private interests | Litigation in New York centralizes evidence; costly translation overlaps; defendants have resources. | Most witnesses/evidence in Guatemala; translation costs and witness travel favor Guatemala. | Private factors favor dismissal in Guatemala. |
| Balance of public interests | Guatemalan system is slow/unsafe; New York has interest in adjudicating human rights claims. | Guatemala has local interest; foreign law application appropriate; comity supports dismissal. | Public factors favor dismissal; Guatemala preferable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 416 F.3d 146 (2d Cir.2005) (three-step FNC framework; deference, adequacy, balance)
- Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.2001) (three-step analysis for forum non conveniens)
- Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir.2009) (applies Iragorri three-step test; burden on defendant)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (Supreme Court 1981) (strong presumption in favor of plaintiff's forum choice; sliding scale deference)
- Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M. v. NAK Naftogaz of Ukraine, 311 F.3d 488 (2d Cir.2002) (concrete public policy considerations in FNC)