Opinion ID: 447550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Choice of Law Analysis as the First Prong of the Forum

Text: Non Conveniens Test 13 Like the district court in Nicol, the district court here performed the choice of law analysis that forms the first prong of a forum non conveniens analysis and, concluding that United States law did not apply, dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In so doing, the district court erred. The district court did not address whether the plaintiffs' decedents were Jones Act seamen or whether the named defendants were Jones Act employers. Those matters go to the question of subject matter jurisdiction. As we noted in Nicol, Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 359, 79 S.Ct. 468, 473, 3 L.Ed.2d 368 (1959), makes clear that choice of law in Jones Act/general maritime law cases is relevant only to the doctrine of forum non conveniens and has nothing to do with subject matter jurisdiction. Nicol, at 294; see also Sosa v. M/V Lago Izabal, 736 F.2d 1028, 1031 (5th Cir.1984). The district court therefore erred when it dismissed the case without proceeding to balance the Gulf Oil factors as they apply to the facts of this case, and we must remand for consideration of the forum non conveniens issue. 14 On remand, the district court need not reconsider its choice of law analysis as to the Jones Act and maritime death statute claims against the owners and operators of the vessel. We agree with the district court that the method of weighing the Lauritzen-Rhoditis factors adopted in the Chiazor line of cases governs this case. See Koke v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 730 F.2d 211 (5th Cir.1984); De Oliveira v. Delta Marine Drilling Co., 707 F.2d 843 (5th Cir.1983); Bailey v. Dolphin International, Inc., 697 F.2d 1268 (5th Cir.1983); Vaz Borralho v. Keydril Co., 696 F.2d 379 (5th Cir.1983); Chiazor v. Transworld Drilling Co., 648 F.2d 1015 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1019, 102 S.Ct. 1714, 72 L.Ed.2d 136 (1982); Zekic v. Reading & Bates Drilling Co., 536 F.Supp. 23 (E.D.La.1981), vacated in part on other grounds, 680 F.2d 1107 (5th Cir.1982) (per curiam). Although the DISCOVERER 511 is considerably more mobile than were the fixed rig vessels in the Chiazor line of cases, its involvement in the offshore drilling industry in the territorial waters of another sovereign, Trinidad, lends greater weight to the place of the wrong and the domicile of the plaintiff in the choice of law analysis. 6 In short, in the circumstances of this case Trinidad's interest in regulating the conduct of its offshore oil industry is greater than the United States' interest in regulating the conduct of domestic corporations drilling for oil in the territorial waters of another sovereign. 7 To the extent that the plaintiffs' complaint may be read to state a cause of action against the vessel owner or operator under the Death on the High Seas Act 8 or under the general maritime law, the same analysis applies. 15 At one point in its analysis, the district court appears to have assumed that the law of one country would necessarily apply to all issues in this case, including the product liability claims against the manufacturers and designers of the winch. 9 It therefore tried to fit square pegs into round holes by incorporating the contacts between the United States and the products liability action into the eight-factor Lauritzen-Rhoditis analysis. We assume, without deciding, that some form of product liability law as it is understood in the United States 10 --either a maritime common law of product liability or the Louisiana law of product liability 11 --would apply to the plaintiffs' claims against the manufacturers and designers of the winch. That fact, however, is not of primary significance in performing a forum non conveniens analysis. In Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that United States law would apply to at least one of two defendants in a product liability action did not require that the case be retained in the United States judicial system when a Gulf Oil analysis demonstrated that the United States was an inconvenient forum. 12 454 U.S. 235, 247-49, 102 S.Ct. 252, 261-62, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981). 16 The district court's task remains to apply the Gulf Oil factors and act accordingly to retain or dismiss the suit. 13 In applying the Gulf Oil test, the court should consider the Gulf Oil factors both as they pertain to the Jones Act claims and to the product liability claims. 14 If, on remand, application of the Gulf Oil analysis leads the court to dismiss all or part of these actions, 15 we believe that the better practice would be to impose somewhat more stringent conditions upon the dismissal than that the defendants consent to appear in a foreign forum. 16 The district court's order of dismissal is 17 VACATED and the causes are REMANDED.