Forum Non Conveniens

• Pages: 77-79

Page 77

Thirty-nine Canadians (Plaintiff s) fi led lawsuits in the Rhode Island courts against various companies (Defendants) that do business there (including General Electric Company), alleging their injurious Canadian workplace exposure to asbestos-containing products. The Defendants moved to dismiss all cases. In May 2005, the Superior Court denied the motions to dismiss. The Judge noted that Rhode Island had not yet recognized the forum non conveniens (FNC) principle (except in child custody matters).

The Defendants successfully petitioned the Rhode Island Supreme Court (RISC) to review the denial of their motions to dismiss the 39 cases. They raised two issues. The fi rst was whether Rhode Island should expressly recognize FNC and set a standard for the same. Secondly, assuming FNC does apply, whether the Superior Court had erroneously "exercised jurisdiction" over the 39 Canadian Defendants.

In a matter of local fi rst impression, the RISC now joins 46 states and the federal courts by formally recognizing the FNC doctrine. The Court fi rst recaps the fundamentals of the doctrine. In general, it says that a court may decline to exercise subject matter jurisdiction when the Plaintiff's chosen forum is signifi cantly inconvenient for Defendants and where litigation in a more convenient forum would better serve the ends of justice.

"Under the [FNC] doctrine 'when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear [a] case, and when trial in the chosen forum would 'establish ... oppressiveness and vexation to a Defendant ... out of all proportion to Plaintiff's convenience,' or when the 'chosen forum [is] inappropriate because of considerations aff ecting the court's own administrative and legal problems,' the court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, dismiss the case on FNC grounds 'even if jurisdiction and proper venue are established.' American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 447-48 (1994) (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 (1981))." [Slip op. 12-13].

"Before embarking on an FNC inquiry, a court must determine the existence of proper jurisdiction and venue. See [Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 504 (1947)]. A court should never apply [FNC] once it determines that jurisdiction is lacking. Sinochem International Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., 127 S. Ct. 1184, 1193 (2007)."

"Nevertheless, a court may 'dispose of an action by an [FNC] dismissal, bypassing questions of...