State ex rel. Mylan, Inc. v. Zakaib
713 S.E.2d 356
W. Va.2011Background
- Consolidated original jurisdiction actions seek writs of prohibition to challenge circuit court rulings on forum non conveniens dismissals.
- Hayden and Hall plaintiffs reside outside West Virginia; injuries related to fentanyl patches alleged against Mylan Petitioners.
- Circuit courts denied motions to dismiss, citing deference to plaintiff forum choice and lack of explicit findings on eight statutory factors.
- This Court granted writs to require factual findings and legal conclusions under West Virginia Code § 56-1-la(a).
- Dispute centers on deference to nonresident plaintiffs, eight-factor mandate, and consideration of defendants’ ties to West Virginia, with remand for proper analysis.
- Court holds that eight factors must be considered and that findings of fact and conclusions of law must be provided for each factor on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deference to forum choice | Nonresident plaintiffs' forum choice should be highly deference; no abolition of deference. | Deference may be diminished under § 56-1-la when plaintiffs are nonresidents and action did not arise here. | Deference may be diminished, but not abolished; courts may defer but must assess under statute. |
| Eight factors requirement | Judges erred by not issuing findings on all eight factors. | Eight factors are not operative until threshold 'interest of justice' finding; may be implied. | Statute requires consideration of all eight factors with explicit findings of fact and law on remand. |
| Defendant's domicile/residency as a factor | Residency of Mylan cannot be a controlling factor under common law tradition. | Residence/ties to WV relevant to balancing private/public interests and access to evidence. | Domicile/ties to West Virginia may be considered; not a controlling presumption, but relevant under the factors. |
| Necessity of two alternate forums | Alternate forum existence is required where defendant amenable to process. | Alternate forum exists (Georgia/Wisconsin); issues Ashore about remedy adequacy. | Alternate forum existence is required if remedy is not clearly inadequate; Wisconsin/Georgia may qualify under Piper and Mace. |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (limits weight given to unfavorable substantive law changes in forum non conveniens)
- Mace v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 227 W.Va. 666, 714 S.E.2d 223 (2011) (exists alternate forums and need for meaningful finding on factors)
- Riffle v. Ranson, 195 W.Va. 121, 464 S.E.2d 763 (1995) (establishes de novo review when statute misapplied)
- Cannelton Indus., Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Stor. Co. of Am., 194 W.Va. 186, 460 S.E.2d 1 (1994) (abuse of discretion standard for forum non conveniens; need for record findings)
- Abbott v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 191 W.Va. 198, 444 S.E.2d 285 (1994) (flexibility of common-law forum non conveniens; residency not dispositive)
- Foster Found. v. Gainer, 228 W.Va. 99, 717 S.E.2d 883 (2011) (mandatory interpretation of 'shall' in statutory context)