## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N os. 09

- 2280 , 09

- 3020 Y A O -W EN C HAN G, e tal ., P laint if fs -App el lants , v. B AXTER H EALT HCARE C OR PO RA T I ON, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees

.
A pp ealsfr o m the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. MD L N o . 986 J FG

—Jo hn F. G rady, Judge
.
S UB MI TT ED F EB RU AR Y 12, 2010

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 26, 2010

Befo re P OSNER, E VANS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . This i s a paral l el cas e t o Abad v. B a yer Corp. , 56 3 F
. 3d 663 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) , deci ded by this panel l astye ar . The cas e was di sm i sse d by the distr i ct cour t, and the pl ai nti ff s hav e a pp eal ed. Ordi nari l y when al l pa r ti es t o a n a ppea l a r e rep r es en te d b y c o uns el, the cour t di re cts or alar gum ent unl ess t he par ti es w ai ve ar gu m en t a n d w e a c c ep t t h e w aiv er . B u t w h en , as in th is c as e, an ap p ea l is clo se ly re lat ed t o a n e a rlier ap p ea l,2 N os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020

ori s s uccess i ve to i t, we are m or e like l y t o deny or al ar g um en t o n the g r o und tha t “the f ac ts a nd l egal a r g umen t s a r e a dequa t e l y p r e s e nt e d in the b r i e f s a nd r e c o r d, and the deci si onalpro cess would not be si gni fi cantl y a i ded by or al ar gum ent. ” Fed. R. A pp . P. 34( a) ( 2) ( C). W e h ave deci ded to do that in thi s ca se. Abadwa s a di v e r s i t y ( t e c hn i c a l l y a n “ a l i e na g e , ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1 332( d)( 2) ( B)) cl ass a c ti on o n behal fo fse ver alhund re d A rg enti nes, co n so l i dati ng a num bero fsui ts that had been fi l ed i n var i ous U. S. st ate s a nd tran sfer re d by th e m u ltid ist ric t p an el t o t h e fe d e r a l d ist ric t c ou rtin C h ica go , pu rs u a n t t o 28 U .S.C . § 14 07, for in c lu sio n in In re Fac t orVIIIorIX Conce ntrate BloodPr oduc t s Li t igat i on . That i s the nam e that has bee n gi ven t o the pr etr i al proce edi ngs i n a l ar ge num ber of products- l i abi l i ty sui ts by he m o phi l i ac s who had b ee n i nfec te d wi thHI V ( th e vi r us that causes A I DS) that had go tt en i nto the c l ott i ng f acto r th at p er so n s a fflict ed w ith h em op h ilia inj ec t in to th eir blood stream s in order to co nt rol bleed ing. T he plaintiff s charg ed that the defendants

— th e m anuf ac tu r er s o fthe clotting factors

— ha d f ai l ed to e l i m i na te HI V fr o m the b l oo d ofdonor s fro m wh i ch the cl ott i ng f acto rs had bee n m ade , a s t hey c o ul d a nd s ho ul d ha ve do ne b y a ppl y i ng heat i n the m anufa cturing pro cess . T h e c l a s s me mb e r s i n Abadhad acqui re d and inj ecte d an d b ec o m e i nfect ed bythe c o nt ami na te d c l o tt i ng f ac to r s i n Ar g en tina , a nd th e d i st r i ctc o ur t g r an te d the defe nd ant’ s m oti on t o dism i ss the a cti on on the gr ound of f or um n o n con ve ni e ns

— the doct ri ne thatal l ows a co urt to dism i ss a suitifthere ar e str ong re aso ns fo r bel i evi ng tha tN os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 3 i t s hou ld b e l i ti gat ed i n the cour ts ofano ther, nor m al l y a fo r ei g n, j ur i sdi ct i o n, i n Abadthe c o ur t s o fAr g e nti na. W e a ffi r med

. The di st r i ctc o ur t ha d defer r ed r ul i ngo n the de fe nd a nt ’ s mo t i o n un t i l c o mpl e t i o n o fthe p l a i nt i ff s’ p re tr ial d isc ov er y. T h e d efe n d an t’s d isc ov er y w ou ld have to b e conducted i n A rg enti na bec ause that w as w h er e t h e m em b er s o f th e c las s liv ed . So w h ile d ep os iti ons and otherdocum ents obt ai ned i n the pla i n tiff s’ di sc o ve r y woul d ha ve t o b e tr an sl at ed i nt o S pan i shi fthe su it w as litiga te d in A rg en tin a, d oc u m en ts ob ta in ed in the defendant’s d i sco ver y in A rg enti na would have to be tr ansl ate d i nto En gl i sh i fthe case was tr i ed i n Chicag o. The pla i nti ff s a rgued that und erA rg enti ne choi ce o fl aw rul es, the substa nti ve l aw thatwould be appli ed i fthe case w er e l i ti ga ted i n an Argenti ne co urt w oul d be Am er i can r a the r tha n Ar g e nt i ne l a w. I ft r ue , thi s wo ul d, we s a i d, h av e b ee n a p ow er fu l arg u m en t fo r lea vin g t h e c as e in C h ica go . B u t a s n ea r as w e w er e a b le t o d et er m in e, it was f al se . Arg en tine l aw wou l d a ppl y wher ev erthe case was tr i ed; and especi al l y b ecause o fthe dearth of r e l e v a n tAr g e n t i n e p r e c e d e n ts o r o th e r s o u r c e s o fl a w, the Arg en tine c o ur t woul d pr o babl y do a b et te r ( m o re au th en ti c, l eg i ti m ate, a utho r i ta ti ve ) j o b o fa ppl y i ng ( i fnece ssa rycr eat i ng) A rg enti ne l aw than an A m er i can cour t. A nd we noted th at the presum pti on in f avo r of a p lai nt iff’ s ch oice oft h e cou rt i n w hich to l iti gate (a presum pti on ba sed i n parto n t h e cost s a nd del ay in vo lve d in re st ar tin g a ca se in a n oth er co u r t) is w ea ke n ed w h en th e p lai n t i ffs a re fore ign an d co u ld4 N os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 l i ti gat e the cas e in their h om e court
. Thus on ba l ance A rg enti na was the m or e co nveni ent, the m or e s u i tabl e, f o r um f o r the l i ti g at i o n. T h e p re se n t c as e, filed o r i g in ally in C alifo rn ia b y re sidents o fTai w an but tr ansfer re d by the m ult i dist ri ct panel to the di s t r i c tc o ur ti n Ch i c a g o wi th the o the r c l o t t i ngf acto r su its for pr etr i alpro ceedi ngs, i s s i m i l arto Abad, al th o ug h i t adds a b r ea cho fc o nt ra ctc l ai m t o the tor t cl ai m s. ( Lik e Abad, i t i s a ctual l y a se ries ofcas es that h ave bee n conso l i dated f orpurposes o fpre tr i alpro ceedi ngs. ) The m ai n tor t cl ai m i s that the d efend ants a c q u i r e d b l o o d fr o m h i g h

- r i s kd o n o r s , p r o c e s s e d i ti mpr o per l y i n Ca l i f o r ni a wher e th eymanuf ac tu r ed cl o tt i ng f ac to r s, an d a fte r di sc o ve r i ngtha t th e f ac to r s wer e co ntam i nated byH I V never thel ess c ontinued to di str ibute th e pr o ducti n f o reign c o unt r i es whi l e wi th dr awi ng th em fro m di str ibuti on i n the U ni ted S tat es. Thus, l i ke the plain ti ff s a nd cl ass m em ber s in the Abadc as e, the pla i nt i ff s i n thi s c a s e , o r the de c e de nt s wh o m t he y r epresen t, re s ide, and obtained and i njected the clotting factor, in a f o r ei g n c o unt r y . The pl aint i ff s al so c ha r g e th atthe defe nd ants f ra ud ule ntl y ind uced th em to ente r i nto a settlem ent a gr eem ent that r el eas ed the defe nd ants f ro m li abili ty in exc ha ng e for p aying $60 , 000 to eac h p lai nt iff. T he breach of con tract claim all eges violation of a term ofthe set tl em ent. T h e d i s t r i c tj u d g e d i s mi s s e d s o me o fth e p l a in t i ff s ’ c l a i ms as u nt im ely and the oth ers on th e groun d of f or um no n co nven i e ns . A lth ou gh a d ism iss al on th e la tt er gro u n d is wi th o utpr ej udi ce , it is a ppea l ab l e, i l l us tr at i ngtha t th eN os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 5 “r ul e” tha t di smi ss al s wi th o utpr ej udi ce a re nonfi na l a nd ther ef or e nonapp eal abl e un der 28 U

. S. C. § 1291 i s a S w i ss cheese

. S ee Sc hering- Plou gh He al t hc ar ePr oduc t s , Inc . v. Schw arz P harm a, Inc. , 586 F.3d 500 , 5 0 6 ( 7th Cir. 2009); Tayl or - H ol m e s v. O

f f i ceof Cook Coun ty Pub l i c Guar di an , 50 3 F
. 3d 60 7, 6 09-10 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 7)
. I n M añez v. Br i dges t one Fi r e s t oneNor t h Am e r i ca n T i r e, LL C, 53 3 F
. 3d 578, 58 4 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08) , we com pared di sm i ssa l o n gr ounds off or um non c onve ni e ns to “a di sm i ssa l f orl ack ofper sonalo r federa l subj ect- m att er j uri sdic ti on, w hi ch, w hi l e fo re closing futu re l iti gation o f th e m atter in th e cou rt i ssui ng the o rder, does n ot p re cl ud e a pl ai nti fffro m re fi l i ng and l i ti gat i ng in a p roper f or um . ” An d such dism i ssa l s, tho ugh w i thout prej ud i ce, ar e o fco urse appeal abl e. The cri ti cal i ssue so f ar as the dism i ssa l s on th e m er i ts ar e c on c er n ed is ch oic e o f law . W h en a d ive rs ity ca se is tr an sfer r ed by the m ul ti di st r i ctl i ti g at i o n pa ne l, the l aw a ppl i ed i s th ato fthe j ur i sdi ctio n fr o m whi chthe c as e w as tra n sfe rre d , in th is c a s e C alifo rn ia. In re A ir D isa st e ratRam s t e i n Ai rBas e, Ge r m an y, on 8/29/90, 8 1 F
. 3d 57 0, 57 6 (5 th C ir. 19 96 ); Johns on v. Cont i ne nt al Ai r l i ne s Corp. , 964 F. 2d 1059 , 10 63 n. 5 ( 10th Cir
. 19 92) ; se e a l so Fe r e ns v. John D e e r eCo. , 494 U .S. 51 6, 52 1-3 1 (1 99 0); Van D use n v. Ba rrack, 376 U .S. 61 2, 63 3-3 9 (1 96 4); Int e r nat i onal M arke t i ng, Lt d. v. Ar ch e r - D ani e l s-M i dl and Co. , 19 2 F. 3d 724, 72 9 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ; Larr y Kram er, “Choi ce o f Law i n Com ple x Lit i gat i on,” 71 N
. Y. U
. L. Re v. 547, 552 (1996 ). The pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s that the di str i ct j ud ge dism i sse d on th e me r i t s h e d i s mi s s e d a s u n t i me l y u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a l a w.6 N os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 Cal i f o r ni a st atut es o flim ita ti o ns do n’ t be g i n t o r un unti l the pla i ntiff di sco ver s, o r shoul d i n the exer ci se of re aso nabl e di l i gence have disc overe d, that he has a c laim ag ain st th e d efe n d an t. N orga rtv. Upj ohn Co. , 98 1 P .2d 79 , 88 -89 an d n . 3 (C al. 19 99 ); Jol l y v . EliLi l l y & Co. , 75 1 P .2d 92 3, 9 27 -28 (C al. 19 88 ); K. J
. v. Ar ca di a Unif i e d S ch ool D is tr ict, 9 2 Cal

. Rpt r . 3 d 1 , 1 0 ( Cal

. App. 2 00 9)
. Butthe d i s c o v e r y r u l e w o u l d n o ts a v e th e p l a i n t i f f s ’ to r tc l a i ms f r o m di smi ss alf o r unti m el i ne ss . Tr ue , the pl aint i ff s ar g ue that they didn’th ave enough i nfo rm ati on o n w hi ch to bas e a s uitunti l a N ew Yo r kTi m es ar ti cl e about the c ontam i nati on o fcl ott i ng f acto rs with H I V w as pu bl i shed on M ay 22, 2003 , and ther ef or e that thei r sui t, fi l ed i n 200 4, was ti m el y, sin c e t h e C alifo rn ia s t a tu te of lim ita tio n s fo r p er so n alinj u ry c laim s is tw o ye ar s. C al. C iv. P . C od e § 33 5.1 ; Fox v. E thic on E ndo-Surgery, Inc. , 1 10 P.3d 9 14, 921 n . 3 ( C al. 2005). Bu t a s the d i str i ct courtfound, the pla i nti ff s had had a re ason ab le basi s t o suspect that they had a cause o fact i on m or e than fi ve yea rs befor e the ar ti cl e ap peare d, w hen th ei r c o uns elha d b egun n eg o ti at i o ns wi tht w o of the defen dan ts t o s et tl e ne g l i g en ce c l ai m s ar i singfr o m the conta m i nati on o fthe defe nd ants’ cl ott i ng f acto rs with H I V. The se ne g otiat i o ns c ul m i na te d i n the s et tl ement in 1 9 9 8 o n w h ich th e p lain tiffs ’ br ea c h of co n tr ac t c laim i s b a s e d. T h e p lain tiffs arg u e t h a t t h e lim ita tio n s p er iod sh ou ld have been tol l ed by defe nd ants’ “fra ud ule nt co nceal m ent” because whene nt er i ngi nt o the s et tl ementa g r ee m en t they sai d they had done nothing w ro ng and thatthey w er e o ffer i ng fi nanci alai d pu rely as a hum ani tar i an ges ture
. The pl ai nti ff s a re m i sta ken. Deni alo fl i abi l i tyN os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 7

w h en n eg ot iat in g a se tt lem en t a gr ee m en t is th e n or m ; i t i s no t e vi dence offra ud ule nt co nceal m ent o fanythi ng. The di st r i ctc o ur t w as al so c o r r ec t i n r ul i ngi n the a l t e r n a t i v e th a ta C a l i f o r n i a c o u r two u l d a p p l y ( “ b o r r o w” i s the te chnic all ega l te rm ) the Tai w anese 10

- yea r sta tute of re pose, be c au se the pl ai nti ff s’ to rtcl ai m s a ro se und er T aiw an ese law

. Th e hem op hili acs w h o m th e plaintiff s re prese nt were i nfect ed in the 19 80s, m or e than a decade bef or e these sui ts w er e br ought. A st at u te o fr e p os e, w h ich is d es ign ed sp ec ifica lly f orpro du cts- l iabil i ty sui ts, cuts offl i abi l i ty aftera fi xed n u m b er of ye ar s, w h et h er or n otth e p lain tiff s h ou ld h a v e d i s c o v e r e d w i th i n th a t pe r i o d th a th e h a d a c l a i m. A st atute o fr epose t h u s ove rr i des the disc ove ryr ule

. I t doe s thi s be cause ofthe l ong l aten c y of m any pr oduct defe cts, wh i ch can under a di sco ver y r ule i m pose vast and unp re dict abl e pr oducts l iab il i ty on m anufa cture rs . Se e Eaton v. Jarvi s Pr oduc t s Corp. , 965 F. 2d 922, 929- 31 ( 10th C ir. 19 92 ); P ullum v. Cincinnati, Inc. , 47 6 So. 2 d 6 57, 65 9- 60 (Fla . 198 5); D avi s v. W hi t i ng Corp
. , 674 P
. 2d 1195

- 96 (Ore. A p p . 1984). If th e p lain tiffs ’ to rtcla im s a ro se in T aiw an , C alifo rn ia l a w mak e s the Ta i wa ne s e s t a t ut e o f r e po s e a pp l i c a b l e to thos e cl ai m s. The r eas on is C al i f or ni a’ s “ bor ro w i ng” st atute , wh i ch

— s e n s ib l y d e s i g n e d t o d i s c o u r a g e f o r um sh o ppi ng

— p ro vi des that“when a cause o fact i on has ar i sen in another St at e, ori n a for ei gn co untry, and by th e l aws the r eo fa n a ct i o n the r eo n canno t th er e be mai ntai ne d a g a i ns t a pe r s o n b y r e a s o n o f the l a ps e o f ti m e, an ac tio n ther eon shal l not be m ai ntai ned aga i nst hi m in8 N os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 thi s S tat e, exce pt i n f avo r ofo ne wh o has b een a ci ti zen ofthi s S t a t e , a nd who ha s he l d the c a us e o f a c t i o n f ro m the t i m e i t a ccr ue d .” C al. Civ. P. Code § 361; se e M cCann v. Fos t e rW

he e l e rLL C, 2010 W L 5 47274, at * 8- 10 ( Cal. Feb. 18 , 2010 ) ; cf. F lo w ers v. C arvil le, 310 F.3d 111 8, 1123 ( 9th Cir. 20 02 ) (N ev ad a la w ); E m ployers Ins. of W a u sa u v. Eh lco Liqu ida ting Trust, 7 23 N
. E
. 2d 68 7, 6 94 ( I l l

. App. 1 99 9)
. The pla i nti ff s a rgue thatthei r cl ai m s ar os e in Cali f or ni a, not Tai w an, bec au se it was i n Cal i f or ni a that the defendants faile d to p ro c es s t h eir clo tt in g fa c to rs in a w ay t h at w ou ld preve nt co nt am i nati on byH I V. But w i th i m m ate ri al excepti on s ( such as tr espass , wh er e pure l y no m i nal d a ma g e s c a n b e a wa r d e d e v e n i ft h e r e i s n o t a n g ib l e h a r m, b e c a us e “ a c o nt i nu i ngt r e s pa s s ma y r i pe n i nt o a p r e s c r i pti ve ri ght a nd depri ve a pro pertyo w ner ofti tl e t o hi s orher l and,” Kron os , Inc
. v. AVX C orp. , 6 12 N. E. 2d 28 9, 2 93 ( N
. Y. 19 93 ); see als o W . Pa ge K ee to n etal., Pros s e ran d Ke e t on on the L a w of Torts § 13 , p. 75 (5t h ed . 198 4); Res t at e m e nt ( S e c on d) o

f To rt s § 16 3 an d c o m m en t d ( 19 65 ) ) , the r e i s no to r t w i t h ou t a n inju ry . Th at is th e ru le in C alifo rn ia, e.g., Butt r am v. O wen s - Corning Fi b e rgl as Corp. , 94 1 P. 2d 71, 77 n . 4 (C a l . 1 99 7); U nited Sta tes Lia bility Ins. C o . v. Ha idi ng erHayes, Inc. , 463 P .2d 77 0, 77 6, (C al . 1 97 0); In reM ar r i age of Kl ug, 3 1 Ca l

. Rp t r . 3 d 3 2 7, 3 3 3 ( Ca l

. App. 2 0 0 5 ) , as els ew h er e. E .g., Ka m elg a r d v . M a cu ra , 58 5 F
. 3d 334, 34 0- 41 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( I l l i noi s l aw ) ; A ba d v . B a yer, sup ra , 56 3 F.3 d at66 9; Parr i s v. St at eFa r m M ut ual Aut om ob i l eIns . Co. , 49 4 S .E .2d 24 4, 24 6-4 7 (G a. A p p . 199 7); K ee to n etal., sup ra , § 30, pp . 164-65. T he tort ofw hic h t he plaintiff s com pla i n thus o ccurr ed i n Tai w an. S ee M cC a nn v. Fo ster Whe e l e rLL C, sup ra , at* 10 a n d n . 5 ; s ee al so Rajal a v. D on-N os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 9

n e l l y M e i n e rs Jor da n Kl i n e, P. C. , 19 3 F .3d 925, 928 (8th Cir. 1999 ) (M issouri l aw ). T h e c as e o n w h i c h th e p lain tiffs p rin c ip ally rely , M cK ee v. D odd, 15 2 Cal

. 63 7 ( 1908 ) , was a b re ac h o fco ntra ct c ase ra th erthan a t or t ca se. The br each ha d been co m m i tte d inNew Yo r k, the pl ac e wher e pay m en t was due , a nd the s uitwas hel d to h av e a ri sen there

. A cl ai m o fbr each o fc o nt r a c ti s c o mpl e t e wh e n the b r e a c h i s c o mm i t t e d, a nd i nd e e d o ne c a n o b t a i n a j ud g men t i n a br each o f c on tr ac t ac tio n w ith ou t p ro vin g a n y los s a t a ll. E .g., Troy k v. Farm ers G roup, Inc. , 90 C al. R p tr . 3d 5 8 9 , 6 2 8 n . 3 6 (C al. A p p . 200 9); M ovi tz v. Fi rs tNat i onal Bank of Chi cago , 14 8 F.3 d 76 0, 76 5 (7t h C ir. 1 99 8); E . A llan Fa rn sw or th , C ontracts § 1 2. 8, p. 75 7 ( 4th e d. 2004 )
. A nyw ay the pl ai nti ffwas in N ew Y o r k w he n th e breac h occ urred , so the inj ury als o oc c u r re d th er e, j u st as it oc c u rre d in T aiw an in the pr ese nt ca se. The pla i nti ff s concede that the suit “accr ued” i n Tai w an bu t d en y tha t it “arose” there. Th ey m isun d ersta nd tho se ter m s. A cl aim “a ccr ues” w hen the sta tute of l i m i tat i ons begins to r un; a cl ai m thatco uld nothave b ee n d isc ov er ed by th e d at e o n w h i c h i t aro se w ill no t (in a jur isd ict ion w ith a d isc ov er y ru le) a c c ru e t h en . E .g., N orgar tv. Upj ohn Co. , sup ra , 981 P .2d at88 ; U nited Sta tes Liabil ity I ns. Co
. v. Haidinger-Hayes, Inc. , sup ra , 46 3 P. 2d at 77 5-7 7; Cada v. B axt e rHe al t hc ar eCorp. , 920 F. 2d 446, 45 0 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0)
. The t er m s “a r o se ” an d “ ac cr ue d” o fte n a re confl ate d, because , othe r than i n case s in w hi ch the disc over y r ule i s invoke d, usual l y the date on wh i ch the cause of acti on “accr ues” i s al so the date on w hi ch i t “ ar i ses . ” In re10 N os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 M ar r i ageof

Kl ug, s upra , 3 1 Cal

. Rpt r . 3 d a t 33 4. The pl ainti ff s’ cl ai m s a ro se i n Tai w an, and that’ s a l l thatm att er s. Cali f or ni a co urts would apply t h e Tai w anese st atute o fr epo se i n thi s ca se e ve n i fthe r e wer e no b o r r o wi ng st atut e. Appl y i ngthe “ ba l an ci ngo fi nt er es ts ap p r o ac h” that Cali f or ni a cour ts use to re sol ve confl i ct o fl aw s i ssues , a Cal i f or ni a co urt w oul d rea son thati fTai w an wil l not provi de a r em edy to i ts own ci ti zens, t h er e i s no r eas on f orCal i f or ni a t o do so

. S ee M cCann v. F os t e rW he e l e rLL C, sup ra , at *1 1, *13 , * 15 -16 ; cf. N el son v. Sa ndoz Ph arm aceuti cals Corp
. , 28 8 F .3d 95 4, 96 5 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); M ac ur dy v. Siko v & Love, P. A. , 8 9 4 F
. 2 d 8 1 8 , 8 2 1 ( 6 th Ci r . 1 9 9 0 )
. Wha ti nt e r est ha s C ali fornia i n t r e a ting T aiw an ese p lai nt iffs m ore g e n e r o u s l y th a n T a i wa n t r e a t s th e m? W e turn to the cl ai m s th at the dist ri ct c ourtdi sm i sse d not as un tim ely but o n t h e basis, rath er, of f or um no n co nve ni e ns . One s eto fc l ai m s a ris es fr o m the s et tl ement agr eem ent that pr ovi ded the pla i nti ff s with $60 , 000 api ec e as c o m pen sa ti on fo r the i nj ur i es c au se d b y the c o nt a mi na t e d c l o t t i ngf a c t o r s . T he a g r e e men tc o nt a i ned w ha t the pa rties calla “scale-up ” claus e b u t w ou ld m ore com m only be r efer r ed to a s a “mos t f av o r ed na ti o n” cl ause. The cl ause re quir ed the defe nd ants to i ncre ase the c om pensati on i n the set tl em ent a gr eem ent t o w hateve r l e v e l the de fe nd a nt s a g r e e d t o i n l a t e r s e t t l e ments w i th o thercl otting- f acto r cl ai m ants. The co ntra ct was ne g o ti at ed an d si g ne d i n Ta i wan, an d whi l e th e plai nti ff s a rgue thatthe scal e- up cl ause i s cl earo n i ts f ace an d ap p lic a b l e t o t h eir cla im s, th e c on tr ac t a c tu ally is am bi guous. Fo r i t i s s i l ent o n w he th er t he r efer ence toN os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 11 othe r cl ai m ants w ho byr ec eivi ng hi gherco m pensati on i ncre ase the pla i nti ff s’ enti tl em ent i s j ust to other Ta iw a nese cl ai m ants , a s the defendants ar gue, o r to othe r claim an ts an yw he re i n th e w orld, as t h e plaintiff s arg ue

— ra theri m p lau sibl y, gi ven the eno rm ous g l obal va r i an ce i n da m ag es a war ds. Ev i den ce b ey o nd the l an guage o fthe set tl em ent a gr eem ent wil l be necessar y t o disa m bi guate the cl ause, and i t s ee m s that m osto f the perso ns w ho ar e i n a posi ti on to gi ve such e v i de nc e l i v e i n Ta i wan

— the pl ai nti ff s’ Tai w anese counselwh o nego ti ated the set tl em ent, a Tai w anese pati ent r epres entat i ve, m em ber s o fthe T aiw anese depa r t men to fh e a l th, de fe nd a nt ’ s T a i wa ne s e o ut s i de c ou nsel, and an e m plo yee o fdefendants i n Tai w an

— w hi l e o nl y tw o l i ve i n the U ni ted S tat es. Tai w anese l aw m ake s i t d i ffi cul t t o gather evi dence f oruse i n a t ri ali n a for ei gn co u n tr y because Tai w an i s no t a party t o the Conve nti on o n the Taki ng o f Evidence A bro ad i n Civi l o r Com m er ci alM att er s, http: //hcch. net/ind e x_en. php ?act= conve nti ons. text&cid=82 ( v i s i t e d Ma r . 1 7, 2 0 1 0 ) ; s e e 1 0 B Fe de r al Pr o ced ure § 26: 906 ( Lawy er s ed. 20 10 )
. The al te r na ti ve m etho d of obt aini ng evid en c e i n a f oreign cou nt ry

— sen d ing a l etter rogatory to the for ei gn co urt, U ni ted S tat es D epart m ent o fS tat e,
“ T a i wa n J u d i c i a l As s i s t a n c e , ” h t t p : // t r a v e l

. s t a t e . g o v / l a w/ i nfo /j ud i ci al/j ud i ci al_669
. htm l( vi si ted M ar . 13 , 20 10)

— se ems n o t to b e a ve r y s at i sf actory m ea ns o fo bt aini ng evi dence fro m Tai w an. S ee K enneth C. M i l l er & N ancy Pi onk, “The Practi calA spects of Lit i gat i ng ag ai nst F or ei gn Corpor ati ons, ” 5 4 J. A ir L
. & Co m m er ce123, 146-49 (1988 );12 N os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 Haye s Bicyc l eGr oup, Inc . v. M uc hac hos Int ’ l Co. , 2 0 0 8 WL 4830 570, at * 2-3 (E.D. W is. Oc t. 31, 2008). The o nl y c i r cumst an ce tha t woul d f av o r hol di ngthe tr i ali n Ca l i f o r ni a r athe r tha n in T aiw anwoul d b e th e greate r c o nv en i en ce f o r the de fen dan ts , s i nc e th eya re A m er i can c om p ani es. But as they don’twant the ca se t o b e t rie d in C alifo rn ia, or in d ee d an yw h er e e lse in th e Uni te d S ta te s, r eal ly th er e i s no th i ngi n f av o r o fthe Am er i ca n f o r um . And a s we po i nt ed o uti n Abad, “ w h en ap p li cation of th e d octrine [of f or um no n c o n v e n i e ns ] w oul d send the pl ai nti ff s t o thei r hom e co urt, the pr esum pti on i n f avo r of g i vi ng pl ai nti ff s thei r choi ce ofco urt i s l i ttle m or e than a t i e br eak er . ” 5 63 F. 3d at 667. There i s no ti e her e. The re m ai ni ng cl ai m thatthe dis tr i ct c ourtdi sm i sse d on grou nd s of f

o r u m n o n c o n v e ni e ns i s the pro du ctsl i ab il i ty cl ai m o fChen-Chen H uang thatm ay orm ay not be t i m e-bar re d. I t i s a n unu su al c l ai m bec ause H uang i s not a hem ophil i ac o r a hem ophil i ac’ s r epres e nt a t i v e . Ra the r, s he c l a i ms t o ha v e b e e n i nfe cted by sexualr el ati ons w i th her boyfri end w ho was a h e mo p h i l i a c ( n o w d e a d ) a n d i s b e l i e v e d t o h a v e b e c o me i nfe cted w ith HIV fro m cl ott i ng f acto rs m anufa cture d b y on e o f th e d efe n d an ts . Th e c r i t i c a l iss u e a t t ria l is l i k el y to be th e l i k el i ho o d th at se x wi th he r boy f r i en d w as res p o n sib le for H u an g’s co n tr ac tin g H IV . Th e p er tinent e vi dence i s in T ai w an and f orthe re aso n note d ea rlier w ou ld be d ifficu lt t o ob ta in for u se in a tria l in the Unite d Sta tes
. A co m pli cati on i s that whether H uang’ s cl ai m w oul d be ti m e-ba r r ed i fl i ti g at ed in a Ta i wane se c o ur t i s unc er ta i n.N os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 13 The defe nd ants saythey“c an didl y t ol d the di str i ct cour t that they do not know w hetherte sti m ony i n Tai w an f ro m , f orexam ple , m edi calpro vi ders m ight i m peach M s. H u an g’s as se rt ion th at sh e d id n o t k n ow of h er H IV i nfe cti on unti l 20 02, wh en such t est i m ony coul d gi ve ris e t o a lim ita tio n s d efe n se .” H u an g re sp on d s t h at th is w i shy- w ashy sta tem ent f ai l s to sat i sfy the defendants’ burden ofpro vi ng tha t Tai w a n i s a n “adequate” al ter nati ve forum , and i f it i sn ’t then dism issal on grou nd s of f or um non c onve ni e ns w as im p rop er. The Suprem e Cour t has sa i d that “ i fthe re m edy pro

vi ded by the al tern at i ve f or um i s s o cl ear l y inadequ ate o r unsati sf acto ryt h at it i s no r em edy atal l, ” s uch dism i ssa l is in d ee d im p r o p er , Pipe rAi r craf tCo. v. Reyno , 454 U
. S. 235, 25 4 ( 1981 ) , as i n such cas es as Ne m ar i am v. Fe deral D em ocrati c Republi c of E thiopia , 3 1 5 F
. 3 d 3 9 0 , 3 9 4

- 9 5 ( D. C. Ci r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a nd El- Fadl v. Ce nt r a l B a nk of Jor dan , 75 F. 3d 668, 67 7- 79 ( D.C. Ci r. 19 96)
. The al ter nati ve f or u m m ust p r o v i d e th e p l a i n t i ffw i th “ a f a i r h e a r i n gt o o b t a i n s o me re m edy f orthe al l ege d w ro ng. ” St r oi t e l s t vo Bulgar i a L t d. v. Bu lg a r i a n -Ame r i c a n En t e rp r i s eFu nd , 58 9 F
. 3d 417, 42 1 ( 7th Cir
. 200 9 )
. Bu tthe r e l i e fn e e d n o tb e a s c o mpr e he ns i ve o r a s f a v o r a b l e a s a p l a i nt i ffmi g hto b t a i n i n a n Am e r i c an c ou rt
. Id. ; see als o, e.g., Pipe rAi r craf tCo. v. Reyno , sup ra , 45 4 U
. S. at24 9; C a pi t al Cur r e ncy Exc hang e, N
. V. v. Nat i onal We s t m i ns t e rBank PLC, 155 F.3d 603 , 610-11 (2 d C ir
. 1998). I t w o ul d b e o dd t o s ubj ec t th e defen dan t to a n i nc o nve ni en t f o r um mer el y t o i ncrease the c ha nc es tha t th e p lai nt iff w il l p revail on the m erits. A s the Sup rem e C ou rt expla i ned i n the P iperAircraftc as e, “ j ur i sdi ct i o n a nd v en ue r equi r ement s ar e o fte n e as i l y s at i sfi ed. As a r es ul t, many14 N os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 pla i nti ff s a re abl e t o choos e fro m a m ong seve ra l f or um s. Ordinar i l y, thes e pl ai nti ff s wil l se l ect that f or um wh ose ch o i ce - o f

- l aw ru le s ar e m o sta dva nt ag eo us . Thu s, i fthe possibi l i ty ofan unf avo rabl e change in substa nti ve l aw i s g i ven s ubstanti alweight i n the f or um no n c onve niens i nquir y, di sm i ssa l would r ar el y b e pr oper . ” 4 54 U
. S. at25 0. Bu t the ca ses sugg estthati fthe pla i nti ff’ s s uitwould be tim e-bar r e d i n th e alternative forum , his rem ed y the re i s inadequ ate

— i s no r em edy atal l, i n a pr ac tical sense

— an d i n su ch a case d ism issal on grou nd s of f orum non c onve ni e ns s ho ul d b e den i ed unl es s th e defen dan t ag r e e s t o wa i v e th e s t a t u t e o fl i mi t a t i o n s i n th a tf o r um an d th e w aiv er w ou ld be en for c ed th er e. N o rex Pe t r ol e um Ltd. v. Acces s Indust ri es, Inc. , 4 1 6 F. 3d 146, 159 (2d Cir. 20 05 ); Bank of

Cr e di t& Com m e r ceInt ’ l ( O ve rs e as ) Lt d. v. Bank of Paki s t an, 27 3 F .3d 24 1, 24 6-4 7 (2 d C i r . 2 00 1); M e r ci e rv. Sherat on Int’ l, Inc. , 935 F.2d 419 , 4 2 6 ( 1 st C ir. 1991); Kont oul as v. A. H
. Rob i ns Co. , 745 F.2d 312 , 316 (4th C ir. 1984 ) ; but see Yavuz v. 61 M M , Lt d. , 57 6 F
. 3d 1166 , 1182 ( 10th Cir
. 20 09) . Ther e i s a n excepti on, however, f or case s in w hi ch a pla i nti ffse eks to defeatdi sm i ssa l by wai tingunt i l the s ta tu te o fl i m i ta ti o ns i n the a lternati ve f or um has expir ed and then fi l i ng sui t in hi s pre fer r ed f o r um ( wi ththe l o ng erl i m i ta ti o ns pe r i o d) a nd ar gu in g t h at th e a lte rn at ive for u m is in ad eq u at e. C om pania N a viera Joa nn a SA v. Ko nin k lijk e B o s k a lis Westm inster NV , 569 F.3d 18 9, 20 2-0 3 (4 th C ir. 20 0 9 ) ; cf. In re B ri dgest one/Fires tone, Inc. , 4 20 F.3d 70 2, 705-07 (7th Cir. 2005 )
. That i s di ffer ent fro m the case in w h ich as a conse que nc e o fde l ay s i nhe r en t i n l i ti g at i o n the de fen dan t ha s ac qui r ed anair ti g htde fen se o funt i m el i ne ss i n theN os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 15

a l t e r na t i v e f o r um s i nc e the l i t i g a t i o n b e g a n. S ee Agui nda v. Texaco, Inc. , 3 03 F
. 3d 47 0, 4 75 , 4 78

- 79 ( 2d Ci r . 2 00 2)
. The bas is for dism issal o n g roun d s of f or um no n c onve ni e ns shoul d be the super i orco nveni ence ofthe al ter nati ve f or um rat h erthan a di ffer ence i n substa nti ve l aw that spel l s doo m f orthe pla i nti ff’ s ca se i fi t i s s ent there

. T he exc ep tion is inap p li cab le in th is case. B ut this can ’t h elp H u an g. If he r c laim is t i m e - b ar re d in T aiw an , i t i s t i me -b a r r e d i n C a l i f o r n i a b e c a u s e , a s we kn o w, t he Cal i f o r ni a co ur ts woul d a ppl ythe Tai w an es e l i m i ta ti o ns per i o d t o a t o r t cl ai m b y a Ta i wane se i nj ur ed i n Ta i wan. So ev en i f, as she fea rs, so m ethi ng i n Tai w an’ s s tatute ofl i m i tati ons w i l l barhercl ai m i fshe i s s hunted to a Tai w anese co urt, thatso m ethi ng would be appli ed by a Cal i f or ni a co urt to bara sui t in Cal i f or ni a. W e ca n i m agi ne a case in w h ich the cour t cho sen b y the pl ai nti ffhas a l onge r sta tute of li m i tat i ons than the c ourtpre fer re d by the d efendant and w oul d not apply the o therj urisd i cti on’ s s hor terst atute
. Then dis

m issal on grou nd s of f o r u m n o n c o n v e n i e ns w ou l d be ta n tam ount to dism i ssa l on the m er i ts, and i f so i t w ou ld m att erwh at the thi nki ng be hi nd the s h or terst atute o f l i m i tat i ons w as. S up pose i t was purel y proc ed ural ori nsti tuti onal

— the j uri sdic ti on with the shor terl i m itatio n s p er iod lac ke d co n fid en c e t h at its co u rt s c ou ld hand l e s ta l e e vi dence but thi s m i sgi vi ng was not shar ed bythe c o ur t i n whi chthe pl aint i ffha d sue d. The n n o j ur i sdi ct i o n’ s po l i cywoul d b e s er ve d b y s en di ngthe pl a i nt i fft o a c o ur ti n whi c h hi s c a s e wo ul d b e do o med

. This case i s di ffer en t be cause the s hor terst atute ( shor ter16 N os. 09

- 2280, 09

- 3020 because the sta tute ofr ep os e caps the co nventi onal statute ofl i m i tat i ons that begins to r un up on di sco ver y) ex pr es se s a su bs ta nt i ve po l icy tha t th e pl aint i ffi s tr y i ng to avo i d. Refusi ng to i nvoke f orum non c onve ni e ns woul d g i ve the pl aint i ffa g r atui to us s ubs ta nt i ve adv an tag e. Conveni ence f avo rs Tai w an and the s tatute o fl i m i tati ons appli cabl e t o thi s s uitwil l be the s am e whether the c ase i s t ri ed ther e o r i n Cal i f or ni a. A FFI RMED .

3- 26- 10