N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT M OHIT R

ANDHAWA , AKA Ha

rpa l Singh; SHANNON C ALLNET PVT LTD., Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. SKYLUX, INC .; INTER

AC T IVE INTELLIGENC E, INC . ; M UJEEB PUZHAKKAR

AILLATH; SKYLUX TELELINK PVT LTD., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-16581 D.C . No. 2:09-c v-02304-WB SKJN M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia W illia m B . Shubb, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 19, 2015 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, D.W . NELSON, a nd C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge s. 

# F IL ED NOV 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).M ohit R andha wa and Sha nnon C a llne t Pvt Ltd. (STPL) (c olle c tive l y , pla i ntiffs) a

ppe a l from

the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of the ir a c tion a ga inst Sky lux, Inc . (Sky lux) on theba s is of forum non c onve nie ns. W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s de c ision for a

n a buse of disc re tion. Pipe r Airc raft C o. v . Re y n o , 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm . To pre va i l on a

m otion to dism

iss on thegrounds of forum non c onve nie ns, the d e fe nda

nt “ m ust show two things: (1) the e xiste nc e of a

n a de quate a lte rnative forum , a nd (2) tha t the ba la nc e of public and priva

te inte re st fa c t ors favors dism issa l.” Boston Te le c ommunic ations Grp. Inc . v . W ood, 588 F.3d 1201, 1206 (9th C ir. 2009), c i ting Loy a v . Starw ood Hote ls &Re sorts W o rldw ide , Inc ., 583 F.3d 656, 664 (9th C ir. 2009). In dism issing the c a se , pla i ntiffs c onte nd the distric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion by

(1) a dm itting the

e xpe rt de c l aration of Am bika S., w/o H.S. Arunpra

k s h (Am bika S.); (2) c onc luding tha

t the Am b ika S. de c l aration suffic i e ntly

e sta b lishe d the a de qua c y

of India n c ourts; (3) de te rm ining tha t the priva te inte re st fa c tors we ighe d in fa v or of dism issa l; a

nd (4) fa iling to im

pose c onditions on dism

issa l . First, the distric t c ourt prope rly a d m itte d the Am

bika S. de c la

ration e ve n though de fe nda

nts fa i le d to a dhe re to Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia

Loc a l R u le 142(a ), whic h re quire s tha t a ffidavits subm

i tte d in support of a

m otion befile d 2with them otion to which it re late s, unle s s a c c om pa nie d by an a ffidavit of c o unse l purporting to show good c a use for the se pa

rat e filing. Although “ [d] istric t judge s m ust a d he re to the ir c ourt’ s loc a l rule s,” only “ a de pa rture from

loc a l rule s tha

t a ffe c ts ‘ substa

n tia l rights’ re quire s re ve rsa l.” A l l. of N onprofits for Ins., Risk Re te ntion Grp. v . K

i ppe r , 712 F.3d 1316, 1327 (9th C i r. 2013) (inte rna l c ita tions and quota tions omitte d). He re , the distric t c ourt ha d the disc re tion to a dm it the late file d de c l aration, e ve n without a n a ffidavit of c ounse l showing good c a use for the se pa ra te filing, be c a

use it did not a ffe c t pla intiffs’ substa ntia l rights. De spite the ta rdy filing, plaintiffs still ha

d ove r a m onth to re spond to the

de c la ration in the ir opposition. Se c ond, pla i ntiffs’ argum e nt tha t the e xpe rt de c la

ration wa s insuffic ie nt to e sta blish thea de qua c y

of the loc a l c o urts in B anga lore and Ludhia na fa ils. Pla i ntiffs wa ive d this obje c tion by ne gle c ting to ra ise it be fore the distric t c ourt. Se e In re E.R. Fe ge rt, Inc ., 887 F.2d 955, 957 (9th C ir. 1989). Eve n if pla intiffs ha d not wa ive d this a

rgum e n t, the distric t c ourt prope rly c onc l ude d tha

t the c ourts of India would provide

a suita ble a lte rnat e forum

for this dispute . Third, pla intiffs c o nte nd tha t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in we ighing the priva

te inte re st fa c tors be c a

u se the c ourt fa ile d

to a ddre ss e a se of a c c e ss to sourc e s of proof, the ava ila bility of c om

pulsory proc e ss, the c ost of 3obta ining a

tte nda nc e of willing witne sse s, a nd the e nforc e a

bility of a judgm e nt. Boston Te le c o m munic ations , 588 F.2d a t 1206-07 (listing the

priva te inte re st fa c t ors to be we ighe d). Pla intiffs’ argum e n t is not persua sive . The distric t c ourt a sse sse d the loc ations of thepa rtie s a nd witne sse s, e m

pha siz ing tha

t a l m ost e ve ry witne s s re side d

in India ; c o nc e d e d tha

t it wa s unc e rta in a s to whe the r c om pulsory proc e s s e xiste d, but highlighte d tha t de fe nda nts ne ve r indic ate d tha

t witne sse s would be unwilling to te stify ; a nd sta te d that pla intiffs ne ve r provide d a ny e vide nc e de m onstra

ting why a judgm e nt in India

would be une nforc e a

ble a g a inst STPL. La stly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

fa iling to c ondition dism issa l on the de fe nda

nt’ s wa ive r of a

sta tute of lim ita

tions de fe nse in the a lte rnative forum . Se e C

arijano v . Oc c ide ntal Pe trole um C orp ., 643 F.3d 1216, 1235 (9th C ir. 2011), c iting Pape r Ope rations C onsultants Inern., Ltd. v . S.S. Hong K ong Ambe r , 513 F.2d 667, 672 (9th C ir. 1975) (limiting a distric t c ourt’ s disc re tion to dism

i ss for forum

non c onve nie ns whe re an e xpire d sta tute of lim ita tions would ba

r the a c t ion in thea l te rnat ive forum ). Pla intiffs ne ve r re que s te d tha

t the distric t c ourt im

pose suc h a

c ondition a

nd ha ve the re fore wa ive d this obje c tion. No c a s e sugge sts, m ore ove r, tha t the distric t c ourt wa s re quire d to im pose c o nditions sua sponte on dismi ssa l. 4AFFIRM E D.

5