Opinion ID: 1954339
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Overwhelming Hardship Applied to the Instant Case

Text: The overwhelming hardship standard, requiring the defendant to make a strong showing, is difficult for a defendant to prove, but it is not preclusive. It simply means that the defendant must show that the case is one of the rare cases where the drastic relief of dismissal is warranted based on a strong showing that the burden of litigating in this forum is so severe as to result in manifest hardship to the defendant. Certainly this defendant has not sustained its burden, even though the plaintiffs are foreign and have no connection to this forum. This is not a case of weighing the foreign plaintiffs' choice of forum (whether it be forum shopping or not) against a defendant whose only connection is that it is incorporated in Delaware. We need not express an opinion on such a case because it is not before us. In this case, the key factors are that the defendant's principal place of business is in this forum and there are significant contacts here with the alleged defective product. In reviewing this case, we consider the Cryo-Maid factors in the context of those key factors. [42] The first Cryo-Maid factor is relative ease of access to proof. The trial court found that most of the witnesses are in the homelands of the plaintiffs, although it acknowledged that some discovery in Delaware would be necessary. [43] Although evidence from the plaintiff's homelands certainly will be necessary, a great deal of evidence not subject to DuPont's control exists in the United States. In any event, the Hague Convention in the United Kingdom [44] and legislative acts in New Zealand [45] provide American courts with the ability to compel the production of evidence (testimonial and physical) in the plaintiffs' homelands. These circuitous routes to accessing evidence are somewhat cumbersome, and litigation in Delaware would place most of this burden on DuPont. But this factor does not present DuPont with an overwhelming hardship. The second Cryo-Maid factor, the availability of compulsory process for witnesses, is closely related to the first. The trial court found that most of the witnesses are in England, while others are in West Virginia. [46] But again, while the non-party witnesses to the injury obviously are located in the plaintiffs' home countries, many other witnesses are located in Delaware. DuPont, as a party to the action, must make its current employees available for testimony, but the plaintiffs may wish to call ex-employees with knowledge of the development of Benlate and benomyl. This presents a mirror-image problem that does not necessarily predominate in favor of any particular forum, much less prove an overwhelming hardship for DuPont should it be forced to litigate in Delaware. [47] The trial court found that the third Cryo-Maid factor, view of the premises, did not predominate in favor of DuPont. It found that a videotape of the premises where the injuries allegedly occurred would suffice to satisfy this factor. [48] DuPont does not challenge this determination in response to the plaintiffs' appeal, but does note that this factor alone cannot be dispositive in a FNC analysis. The fourth Cryo-Maid factor concerns the choice of laws and Delaware's interest in the litigation. This issue must be addressed squarely on remand. The trial court decided that Delaware substantive law does not apply since the injuries all occurred in the plaintiffs' home countries. [49] The plaintiffs correctly note that the application of the law of the place of injury is a rebuttable presumption that they can defeat with a showing that Delaware has a more significant relationship to the action. [50] They contend that DuPont's research and development of benomyl in Delaware is the key event in these alleged injuries. They further argue that the place of injury is fortuitous because the product was defective when it left the United States. In making this argument, the plaintiffs seem to misapprehend the legal concept of fortuity. Most cases that discuss a fortuitous place of injury limit their discussion to whether the location of the victim (not the product) was fortuitous. [51] Airplane accidents are an example of fortuitous injuries because the victim often has no connection to the place of the crash. [52] In this case, the plaintiffs cannot claim that the alleged injuries occurred fortuitously in their home countries. [53] It is significant for choice of law purposes that the United Kingdom and New Zealand both have regulatory agencies that had approved Benlate for domestic sale. All warnings and labels on the products that caused the alleged injuries were consistent with the requirements of these regulatory agencies. The home countries have a significant interest in setting the safety standards by which a product sold in their country will be judged. Plaintiffs correctly point out that Delaware has some interest in regulating the products developed within its borders, but this interest does not suffice to rebut the presumption that the United Kingdom and New Zealand have more significant relationships to the alleged injuries. [54] Considering the place of the alleged injuries, the place of the treatments for these injuries and the regulation of the product by the home countries, the trial court may well have been correct in its initial determination that Delaware law does not apply to these claims. Whether or not the trial court ultimately decides that Delaware law does not apply, this finding alone would have been insufficient for dismissal on the ground of FNC. [55] Now that we have determined that this action must go forward in Delaware, the trial court should consider afresh the choice of law questions on specific issues as the case develops and a full factual record is presented. In view of our decision herein, the trial court's initial determination on choice of law issues for FNC purposes is not the law of the case for purposes of considering the merits. The fifth Cryo-Maid factor concerns the pendency or non-pendency of other actions. The trial court noted that the only pending matter is in Federal District Court in West Virginia. [56] Plaintiffs correctly note that the West Virginia action cannot be considered in this analysis because it involves different plaintiffs. [57] DuPont does not dispute this point, but rather argues that the non-pendency of a similar action should not be fatal to a motion for dismissal citing FNC. In the abstract, this is a correct observation, but here the point must be evaluated in the overall context of our holding. In Taylor, we stated that judicial discretion is to be exercised sparingly where, as here, there is no prior action pending elsewhere. [58] In the instant case, no other action is pending between the same parties in another jurisdiction. DuPont contends that this is irrelevant because it results from the plaintiffs' own choice and that, due to the minimal discovery that has taken place, it would cause no real hardship to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs argue that this is dispositive and should automatically result in denial of the motion to dismiss. Following Taylor, we apply an enhanced level of scrutiny to situations where the trial court dismisses based on FNC and no prior actions are pending in alternate fora. Therefore, this pending action factor is neither dispositive nor irrelevant. Most jurisdictions, including Delaware, approach the pending actions analysis with a view toward judicial economy in cases with prior pending actions. As in McWane Cast Iron Pipe, courts are more likely to dismiss a cause of action based on FNC if other jurisdictions are hearing a similar case, because it would be a waste of judicial resources to prosecute the same action multiple times. [59] By contrast, in cases where no prior actions are pending, we focus on the possible cost and delay to the plaintiff if dismissal forces a brand new action in an alternate forum. [60] In Piper Aircraft, the United States Supreme Court applied FNC to dismiss a cause of action where the plaintiffs had already instituted a similar cause of action in the United Kingdom. [61] But the Court did not decide Piper Aircraft on the basis of prior pending actions. Instead, it looked to the existence and viability of an alternative forum, not the existence and viability of a prior filed action. [62] By not focusing on the existence of a prior filed action, Piper Aircraft at least implicitly prevents plaintiffs from abstaining from filing an action in their home jurisdiction just so they can argue that no prior filed action existed and that dismissal under FNC is precluded. The trial court must look at the cost and prejudice that would result from a dismissal in a case where no other actions are pending. For example, the trial court should consider how far discovery has commenced and whether this process would have to begin anew in the alternate forum. If the trial court did this sort of analysis in this case, it is not clear from its brief opinion. A trial court must analyze the effect of the non-pendency of similar actions involving the same parties in alternate jurisdictions in light of the burden on the defendant to show overwhelming hardship. The sixth Cryo-Maid factor is all other practical problems. Two stand out in this case. First, as the trial court noted, DuPont claims that there are possible third-party defendants not subject to impleader in any action in Delaware. [63] Second, DuPont has agreed to waive any jurisdictional or statutes of limitation defenses that it might possess in the alternate fora. The alleged third-party defendants are I.C.I. and the employers of the mothers of the New Zealand plaintiffs. DuPont argues that any judgment against it in a Delaware court would do nothing to protect it against future litigation based on the same claims against these third-party defendants. For example, if the United Kingdom plaintiffs chose to sue I.C.I. in England, I.C.I. could implead DuPont and DuPont could be held liable again for the same injuries. Due to similar concerns, courts in other jurisdictions in certain factual settings have found substantial prejudice based on the fact that a defendant could not implead potential third-party defendants. [64] Although this factor initially appears to weigh in favor of DuPont, it did not present any evidence that this factor is more than illusory. As the plaintiffs noted, DuPont never acted to implead any third-party defendant, and we are not persuaded that any inability to do so would be an overwhelming hardship. [65] In response to a question at oral argument in this Court about whether the distribution contracts DuPont signed with these potential third-party defendants included an indemnification clause that would render this issue moot, counsel for DuPont answered that he did not know. Considering the state of the record on this issue, we cannot say that DuPont has proven that the inability to implead potential third-party defendants is a factor that would lead us to find that it is likely to suffer overwhelming hardship. The second important practical problem is one that has been avoided through DuPont's willingness to waive any jurisdictional or statutes of limitation defenses that it might possess in the alternate fora. This removes any doubt that the plaintiffs would be able to assert their claims in their home countries. Of course, this factor relates to the convenience of the plaintiffs, not to the inconvenience of the defendant. Thus, it balances in favor of DuPont, but is not probative of the overwhelming hardship issue. The plaintiffs assert several other practical considerations, most notably the much higher cost of prosecution of products liability cases in the United Kingdom and New Zealand. [66] This argument lacks significant legal merit for two reasons. First, as noted above, the overarching factor that a trial court must consider in an FNC analysis is substantial hardship to the defendant. Second, even though Delaware jurisprudence does accord the cost of prosecution factor some weight, [67] in this case the trial court considered the difficulty that the plaintiffs might encounter in pursuing this claim in their home countries due to the unavailability of contingency fee arrangements. It decided that this did not swing the balance back in favor of the plaintiffs. [68] Although the other practical considerations weigh in favor of DuPont, the six Cryo-Maid factors together do not prove that DuPont would suffer overwhelming burden or inconvenience if forced to litigate in Delaware. The fact that DuPont's principal place of business is in Delaware and the fact that the product at issue was researched and developed in Delaware effectively preclude a finding on this record that DuPont would suffer overwhelming hardship by litigating in Delaware.