Opinion ID: 702303
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inaccessibility of a Foreign Forum

Text: 229 Plaintiff argues that St. Lucia is an inaccessible forum because she is in no financial position to travel to St. Lucia, hire St. Lucian counsel, and pursue an action against the defendants in the St. Lucian courts. Additionally, she claims that St. Lucia is an inconvenient forum. Similar to Neely, the plaintiff in Rodriguez v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A., 703 F.2d 1069 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 820, 104 S.Ct. 84, 78 L.Ed.2d 94 (1983), argued that a foreign forum was not convenient to him because his physicians and medical records were in the United States and because he had retained United States counsel who would not represent him in Colombia. Id. at 1075 n. 3. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in rejecting the plaintiff's argument, stated: 230 Convenience of the witnesses and attorney are not factors cited by the Court in Lauritzen and Rhoditis as determinators of the Jones Act jurisdiction. Although these factors might be a persuasive argument for exercising a discretionary jurisdiction to adjudge a controversy ... it is not persuasive as to the law by which it shall be judged. Lauritzen, 345 U.S. at 589-90, 73 S.Ct. at 931-932. Thus, the costs and loss of time entailed in deposing the medical witnesses and sending the records and the American attorney to ... [a foreign forum] while relevant to the issue of forum non conveniens are not relevant factors in determining whether [United States law should be applied]. 231 Id. 232 I agree with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that the Supreme Court in Lauritzen did not intend the inaccessibility of a foreign forum factor to require a forum non conveniens analysis. The Supreme Court in Lauritzen rejected the argument that justice requires adjudication under American law to save seamen expense and loss of time in returning to a foreign forum. 345 U.S. at 589, 73 S.Ct. at 932. Lauritzen indicates that inaccessibility of the forum and forum non conveniens are two separate and distinct matters. Therefore, discounting any claim of inconvenience by Neely in bringing this suit in a foreign forum, it is not clear why a forum in St. Lucia would be inappropriate. Neely has offered no credible evidence to indicate that St. Lucia will not entertain such a suit or that there are other barriers to her being heard in that jurisdiction. 15 233 The majority treats this factor as neutral, especially ... because the defendants have presented the court with no information about what remedies St. Lucian law might ... offer the plaintiff. Maj. op. at 190. When one recognizes the fallacy of assigning the burden to the defendant, the majority's argument does not hold water. Because plaintiff bears the burden of proof, this factor weighs against applying United States law to this dispute.