Forum Non Conveniens

• Author: International Law Group
• Pages: 199-201

Page 199

The following is a dispute between a Mexican banking corporation and a South Carolina company over the proceeds from the sale of textile manufacturing equipment. A Mexican textile manufacturer, Denimtex, S.A. de C.V., purchased $30 million worth of manufacturing equipment with bank loans, and began defaulting on the loans in 2000. BBVA Bancomer, S.A. (Bancomer) held a security interest in that equipment, and DTEX, LLC claims that it owned the equipment based on a foreclosure sale by the Mexican Government. This dispute has occupied Mexican and U.S. courts since 2002. In one of the Mexican actions, Bancomer claimed that the Mexican tribunal that conducted the sale of the equipment had done so in violation of Bancomer's rights. The Mexican court dismissed that action, and subsequent appeals confirmed the result.Page 200

DTEX filed the present lawsuit in the Southern District of Texas, seeking damages for tortious interference with contract, intentional interference with prospective contractual relations, and conversion. There was jurisdiction over Bancomer in Texas because it has a foreign bank agency in Houston, Texas. The district court dismissed DTEX's lawsuit based on forum non conveniens, suggesting that the matter proceed in Mexico. This appeal ensued.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirms the district court because there was no abuse of discretion. In fact, the Court fully agrees with the district court's opinion and adopts its Memorandum and Order by reference as the opinion of the Court.

The district court has broad discretion in determiningforum non conveniens, and such finding may be reversed only if there is a clear abuse of discretion. The applicable standard is:

"The defendants bear the burden of proof on all elements of the forum non conveniens analysis.

The 'private interest' factors include: '(I) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (ii) availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; (iii) possibility of view of [the] premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; (iv) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive . . . enforceability of judgment [; and whether] the plaintiff [has sought to] 'vex,' 'harass,' or 'oppress' the defendant. [...]

"The 'public interest' factors include:" "(i) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (ii) the...