Sands v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
N17C-06-249 ALR & N17C-07-069 ALR
| Del. Super. Ct. | Nov 20, 2017Background
- Two plaintiffs (Rodney Sands of Oklahoma; Richard Hunt of California) sued Union Pacific Railroad Company (Delaware-incorporated) alleging occupational exposure to toxic substances causing cancer under FELA.
- Sands worked for Union Pacific as trackman/conductor (2001–2015); Hunt worked as a machinist in Roseville, CA (1978–2014).
- Union Pacific moved to dismiss both suits from Delaware on forum non conveniens grounds; Sands amended his complaint and only the forum motion remained; Hunt had additional pending motions addressed separately.
- Defendant argued Delaware lacks a substantive connection to the claims other than corporate domicile and that witnesses/evidence are located out-of-state.
- Plaintiffs opposed dismissal; no related actions were pending in another forum and plaintiffs had not filed elsewhere.
- Court applied the Cryo-Maid factors (as framed by Delaware Supreme Court precedent) and denied Union Pacific’s motions, finding no showing of "overwhelming hardship."
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Delaware is an inconvenient forum warranting dismissal on forum non conveniens | Plaintiffs prefer Delaware; no prior actions elsewhere; Delaware can adjudicate FELA claims | Union Pacific: only Delaware connection is incorporation; witnesses/evidence and relevant sites are out-of-state making litigation unduly burdensome | Denied — defendant failed to show "overwhelming hardship" required for dismissal |
| Access to proof (documents/medical records) | Plaintiffs: records obtainable electronically; out-of-state discovery expected regardless | Defendant: critical proof and witnesses located outside Delaware | Weighed against dismissal — modern tech/transportation and parties’ resources attenuate burden |
| Compulsory process for witnesses | Plaintiffs: Delaware’s discovery rules suffice; lack of specific uncooperative witnesses | Defendant: court cannot compel out-of-state witnesses | Not dispositive — defendant did not identify specific unavailable witnesses; factor does not favor dismissal |
| Need for view of premises | Plaintiffs: no showing physical view is necessary | Defendant: site visits (tunnels, buildings, ventilation) may be important | Insufficiently particularized — no overwhelming hardship shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., Inc., 86 A.3d 1102 (Del. 2014) (forum non conveniens standard and "overwhelming hardship" requirement)
- Ison v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 729 A.2d 832 (Del. 1999) (forum non conveniens analysis and consideration of plaintiff’s burden if forced to refile)
- Gen. Foods Corp. v. Cryo-Maid, Inc., 198 A.2d 681 (Del. 1964) (Cryo‑Maid factors guiding forum non conveniens inquiry)
- Taylor v. LSI Logic Corp., 689 A.2d 1196 (Del. 1997) (respect for plaintiff’s choice of forum and factor analysis)
- Warburg, Pincus Ventures, L.P. v. Schrapper, 774 A.2d 264 (Del. 2001) (application of "overwhelming hardship" where only connection is corporate domicile)
- Candlewood Timber Grp., LLC v. Pan Am. Energy, LLC, 859 A.2d 989 (Del. 2004) (Delaware’s interest in regulating conduct of Delaware‑incorporated entities)