Rosa Saramiento Moreno v. LG Electronics, USA Inc.
800 F.3d 692
5th Cir.2015Background
- Moreno, a Mexican citizen, sued LG Electronics entities in Texas for an alleged workplace injury that occurred in Mexico; she sought clerk’s entries of default against LG USA and LG Reynosa.
- The clerk entered default against LG USA; the district court declined to enter default against LG Reynosa due to defective service.
- LG USA appeared, moved to set aside its default, argued LG Reynosa did not exist, and moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens (arguing Mexico is the proper forum).
- Moreno responded only by arguing a defaulting defendant cannot assert procedural defenses (i.e., forum non conveniens) and did not contest the merits of the dismissal motion.
- The district court issued one order setting aside LG USA’s default, granting dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, and denying as moot Moreno’s request for default against LG Reynosa; Moreno appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred by setting aside LG USA’s default and ruling on its forum non conveniens motion in the same order | Moreno: A defaulting defendant cannot assert procedural defenses; court should not decide the motion without notice or after upholding default | LG USA: Default was properly set aside; once set aside, forum non conveniens is ripe and may be adjudicated | Court: No reversible error — setting aside default is discretionary and court may decide the now‑ripe motion in same order absent prejudice |
| Whether Moreno preserved the notice/procedural‑error claim on appeal | Moreno: Preserved — argued defendant lacked standing due to default | LG USA: Issue waived for failure to request leave to respond to merits after default set‑aside | Court: Moreno preserved the issue by asserting lack of standing below; no waiver |
| Whether lack of separate Rule 58 document deprived the court of appellate jurisdiction | Moreno: Appeal timely from district court order | LG USA: Argued district court’s order might not be final without separate judgment | Court: Appellate jurisdiction exists; Rule 4(a)(7) and waiver doctrines cure separate‑document noncompliance |
| Whether dismissal on forum non conveniens was an abuse of discretion | Moreno: Mexico is inadequate due to wage/statutory limitations and damages caps | LG USA: Mexico is an available and adequate forum; private and public interest factors favor dismissal | Court: Dismissal affirmed — Mexico is presumptively available; private and public factors strongly favor Mexico; Moreno showed no prejudice or distinguishing evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 325 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2003) (federal forum non conveniens framework in foreign‑forum cases)
- DTEX, LLC v. BBVA Bancomer, S.A., 508 F.3d 785 (5th Cir. 2007) (standards and factors for forum non conveniens dismissal)
- In re Ford Motor Co., 591 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 2009) (presumption that Mexico is an available forum for tort suits)
- Saqui v. Pride Cent. Am., LLC, 595 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2010) (adequacy of Mexico despite differences in damages)
- Atl. Richfield Co. v. F.T.C., 546 F.2d 646 (5th Cir. 1977) (appellant must show prejudice from lack of notice to rule on merits)
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc., 460 F.2d 1096 (5th Cir. 1972) (prejudice standard for lack of notice)
- Dierschke v. Garcia, 975 F.2d 181 (5th Cir. 1992) (discretion to set aside default; courts prefer adjudication on merits)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (forum non conveniens principles and plaintiff’s chosen forum burden)