Opinion ID: 577047
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: other private interest factors

Text: 18
19 The district court considered SWD's inability to implead SUAG in the United States to be the most important factor warranting dismissal, and the court gratuitously opined that this factor alone would justify dismissal. ELMA argues that the trial court erred in making that consideration because SWD has no right of indemnity against SUAG for defects in its own engines. Alternatively, ELMA contends that the trial court erred because the doctrine of Leger v. Drilling Well Control, Inc., 592 F.2d 1246 (5th Cir.1979), protects SWD from having to pay more than its actual percentage of fault, which in turn renders SUAG's contribution unnecessary. 20 We cannot say that the district court acted unreasonably in finding that SWD's defense would be prejudiced if ELMA won judgment in the United States and SWD subsequently had to seek indemnity or contribution against SUAG in a foreign forum that is not bound to honor that judgment. The district court was entitled to consider SWD's inability to implead SUAG as a private interest factor. Piper, 454 U.S. at 259, 102 S.Ct. at 267; Nolan, 919 F.2d at 1069. We reject ELMA's assertion that SWD has no potential claims against SUAG. ELMA itself originally brought similar third-party claims against SUAG. And even under the Leger doctrine, assuming it applies, SWD could not effectively defend by faulting SUAG in the United States forum, according to the district court's findings. SWD cannot look to the district court to compel the discovery SWD needs to present evidence of SUAG's fault. We do not think that SWD has waived discovery as to that issue. And SWD still would risk exposure to the inconvenience and unfairness of inconsistent judgments in the event the district court assigned to SWD greater liability than did the Dutch court which may disregard the United States judgment. See Piper, 454 U.S. at 243, 260, 102 S.Ct. at 259, 268 (district court reasonably found that defendant's recourse to subsequent indemnity or contribution action in foreign forum creates risk of inconsistent judgments). 21
22 SWD argued, and the district court concluded that trial in the United States would impair SWD's defense based on SUAG's fault because important SUAG documents relating to the construction of the ELMA TRES are located at SUAG headquarters in Germany, and SUAG has consented to jurisdiction only in the Netherlands. ELMA does not aver that trial in the Netherlands will interfere with ELMA's access to documents important to ELMA for the trial of this case. In light of the district court's reasonable conclusion that SWD had a legitimate potential defense based on SUAG's fault, we think that the district court's balancing of this factor also was reasonable. 23
24 ELMA also argues that the trial court gave inadequate consideration to the convenience associated with producing witnesses for trial in the competing fora. ELMA does not say that the trial court misidentified any witnesses or their residence, but rather that the court ignored ELMA's problems or weighed factors incorrectly. While the district court gave terse consideration to these factors, we cannot say that the court's conclusion was unreasonable. 25 SWD has six expert witnesses in the United States and at least four experts in the Netherlands. ELMA has two experts in Europe and six in the United States. So, in regard to expert witnesses, ELMA and SWD are equally inconvenienced by trial in the Netherlands, while SWD faces greater inconvenience if the case is tried in the United States. ELMA argues that it selected expert witnesses based on their English-speaking ability because it anticipated trial in the United States. But SWD did also, and we are unable to conclude that the language ability of expert witnesses creates more inconvenience for one party than for the other. We cannot fault the district court's overall conclusion that the factor of access to expert witnesses favors dismissal. 26 SWD has approximately six fact witnesses in Holland, four of whom are not under SWD's control. Of those four, two were not deposed de bene esse. None are subject to process of the United States court. ELMA has key witnesses in Germany, whom ELMA contends are not subject to process in the Netherlands and who also are not subject to process in the United States. However, some of these witnesses are employees of SUAG, which has agreed to cooperate with ELMA and to submit to jurisdiction in the Netherlands. Further, ELMA's crucial foreign fact witnesses were deposed de bene esse with those depositions possibly admissible at trial in the Netherlands subject to the Dutch court's discretion. Basically, ELMA can try much of its case by deposition in the United States, but its right to do so in the Netherlands may be limited. SWD prefers calling live witnesses for trial, and would be substantially inconvenienced by trial in the United States. 27 Relative to the issues in the case, trial in the United States puts SWD's presentation of its defense at risk primarily for lack of compulsory process over one former employee involved in the design of the ELMA TRES' main engines, one former employee responsible for the guaranty work associated with installation of the auxiliary engines on board the ELMA TRES, and two non-employee engineers familiar with the functioning of SWD's auxiliary engines. By comparison, trial in the Netherlands puts ELMA's presentation of its claims at risk primarily for lack of compulsory process over the sole survivor of the ELMA TRES' sinking, and two Germanischer Lloyds officials involved in classification of the vessel. But the sole survivor and one Lloyds official were deposed de bene esse, so their depositions may be admissible at trial in the Netherlands. We think that the district court reasonably concluded that the location of fact witnesses favors dismissal. 28
29 ELMA argues that the district court erred in weighing ELMA's alleged inability to enforce a United States judgment in the Netherlands, when ELMA can enforce such a judgment against SWD's assets in the United States. ELMA points out that the district court merely assumed that SWD's assets were located solely in the Netherlands, and that SWD failed to meet its burden of producing affidavit evidence of the location of its assets to establish that a judgment in ELMA's favor could be enforced only in the Netherlands, and not in the United States or some other country that harbors SWD assets and enforces United States judgments. 30 The district court's conclusion that ELMA would have to proceed on ... [a] judgment in the Netherlands did not rest upon any explicit finding regarding ELMA's ability to enforce judgment on SWD assets located elsewhere. ELMA and SWD agree that the record does not establish the location of SWD's assets. Since the burden fell on SWD to establish that the judgment-enforceability factor favored dismissal, we believe that the district court was unreasonable in weighing this factor in favor of SWD. We think that the district court should have found this factor to be in equipoise between the parties. 31 Considering all of the relevant factors, including the district court's inability to reach SUAG documents or compel the attendance of witnesses relevant to SWD's fault-sharing defense, the access to proof sources, and the relative inconvenience associated with producing witnesses for trial, we cannot say that the district court concluded unreasonably that the private interest factors favor dismissal. While the district court gave substantial weight to SWD's ability to join SUAG in the Netherlands, the court's opinion does not indicate that the court impermissibly gave conclusive weight to that, or any other, single factor. Without approving the extent of analysis conducted by the district court, we are unable to say that the district court's conclusion regarding the private interest factors was unreasonable, relative to the convenience of the alternative fora for the parties' presentation of their respective claims and defenses.