Opinion ID: 184058
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: The District Court Correctly Dismissed the Complaint of the Family Members of Roberto Tazoe Despite the Added Deference Given to Their Choice of Forum.

Text: The family members of the victim who was a citizen of the United States, Roberto Tazoe, make arguments identical to those outlined above, but their choice of forum is entitled to somewhat more deference, as we are hesitant to deny citizens access to courts of the United States. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 256 n. 23, 102 S.Ct. at 266 n. 23. A district court must find positive evidence of unusually extreme circumstances, and should be thoroughly convinced that material injustice is manifest before exercising any such discretion as may exist to deny a United States citizen access to the courts of this country. SME Racks, 382 F.3d at 1101. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that material injustice is manifest with respect to the claims of Tazoe's family members against the manufacturers. The district court concluded that the Manufacturing Defendants' inability to compel third-party witnesses or the production of documents from those witnesses, and the inability to implead potentially liable third-parties, is both unusually extreme and materially unjust. The district court determined that, [i]n combination with the previously addressed private and public interest factors which also support dismissal, this [inability] far outweighs the heightened deference applied to Mr. Tazoe. Tazoe's family members argue that the district court abused its discretion and contravened the decision of this Court in SME Racks, but in SME Racks the district court failed to articulate the relevant standards [for plaintiffs that are citizens of the United States] and failed to apply any presumption in its analysis. id. at 1102. In contrast, the district court articulated the correct standard, gave deference to the choice of forum of Tazoe's family members based on their status as citizens of the United States, and supported its decision with persuasive analysis. The district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to these family members. We affirm the dismissal of their complaint.