Opinion ID: 623016
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Compelling Considerations of Remedial Justice

Text: Because the action is barred under Louisiana law but may not be barred under Iraqi law, the remaining issue under Article 3549(B) is whether maintenance of the action in [Louisiana] is warranted by compelling considerations of remedial justice. La. Civ.Code art. 3549. The comments to the Civil Code acknowledge that the remedial justice concept was borrowed from the 1987 Revision of Section 142 of the Restatement, Second, of Conflict of Laws. Id. art. 3549 cmt. (f). The Restatement refers to cases where: (1) through no fault of the plaintiff an alternative forum is not available as, for example, where jurisdiction could not be obtained over the defendant in any state other than the forum or where for some reason a judgment obtained in the other state having jurisdiction would be unenforceable in other states; and (2) suit in the alternative forum, although not impossible would be extremely inconvenient for the parties. Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, 1986 Revisions, § 142 cmt. (f)). This exception is intended . . . to be used in only the most extraordinary of circumstances. Brown v. Slenker, 220 F.3d 411, 420 (5th Cir.2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted). There is scant Louisiana caselaw on the remedial justice principle under Article 3549(B), and only one case found the considerations to be compelling. See Smith v. ODECO (UK) Inc., 615 So.2d 407, 410 (La.Ct.App.1993). In Smith, a resident of the United Kingdom brought an action in Louisiana state court for injuries sustained while on a drilling rig off the coast of Spain. Id. at 408. The defendants contended that Louisiana had no interest in the case and that Scotland was the proper jurisdiction in which to sue all defendants because the plaintiff was a resident of the United Kingdom, worked out of the Scotland office, and his injuries were treated in Spain and England. Id. The parties agreed that the substantive law of the United Kingdom applied, but the plaintiff submitted an affidavit explaining why jurisdiction would not lie in Scotland. Id. The court agreed, holding that Louisiana was the only forum with personal jurisdiction over all defendants. Id. at 410. Accordingly, there were compelling considerations of remedial justice warranting maintenance of the action in Louisiana. Id. We examine what is involved in the present suit. First, this action involves a situation where, through no fault of the plaintiffs, an alternative forum is not available. Although both the alleged injury-causing conduct and the injury occurred in Iraq, that country does not provide an available forum because of paragraph 3 of CPA Order 17 § 4. The Texas prescriptive period expired and, as Arkel insisted in the Texas proceeding, that state's courts potentially lacked personal jurisdiction over Arkel. The plaintiffs did not have an alternative forum to Louisiana. Second, even were the plaintiffs' claims not barred in Iraq under CPA Order 17, it would be extremely inconvenient for either party to litigate in Iraq. Arkel is a limited liability company domiciled in Louisiana and the plaintiffs are residents of Texas. For all the progress in Iraqi security that the United States purchased with its blood and treasure, that country might reasonably be avoided as a desirable forum in which Americans can litigate. The security concerns related to litigating in Iraq, and Arkel's exemption from suit there that CPA Order 17 seemingly provides, make the considerations of avoiding suit in Iraq compelling. Arkel contends that the plaintiffs' procrastination should automatically constitute a non-compelling consideration. Arkel also believes it relevant that the suit was filed earlier in Texas, making the current suit little more than an attempt to forum shop. The Restatement of Conflicts, from which the concept of compelling considerations was borrowed, discusses procrastination in terms of a plaintiff allowing the prescriptive period to run in other jurisdictions and being forced to file in the final state to borrow a longer prescriptive period. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, 1986 Revisions, § 142 cmt. (g) (noting that most egregious examples of forum shopping occur where a forum entertains a claim not barred by its own statute of limitations, even though the forum had no other contact with the case). Those are not our facts. The plaintiffs sought to borrow Iraq's prescriptive period because their claims had lapsed under Louisiana law. The Texas case was dismissed at least in part because of Arkel's compelling motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas. The plaintiffs brought their action in Louisiana because of the challenges of bringing it in Iraq. See La. Civ.Code art. 3549(B)(1). Viewing the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovants, we conclude the district court erred in granting judgment. The suit is barred under Louisiana prescription law, has not been shown to be barred under the prescription law of Iraq, whose substantive law applies to the merits of the action, and maintenance of the action in Louisiana is warranted by compelling considerations of remedial justice. Id. On remand, the factual issue regarding when plaintiffs received necessary notice will need to be resolved.