Opinion ID: 2502333
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Consideration of Eight Factors

Text: As previously explained, West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a(a) sets forth eight factors that courts shall consider when determining whether to grant a motion to stay or dismiss an action . . . under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Because neither of the circuit judges below set forth findings of fact or conclusions of law as to those factors, the Mylan Petitioners contend that both judges erred by failing to apply the plain language of the statute. The Hayden Respondents argue that a court is not required to consider the factors enumerated in West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a unless and until the court has made a threshold finding that dismissal is warranted in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties. In other words, they assert that the eight factors are only to be considered if that threshold finding supports dismissal of the case. They argue that, after considering this threshold issue, Judge Zakaib concluded that dismissal in this case would not serve the interest of justice and, therefore, he was not required to consider the eight factors. After reviewing the plain language of the statute, we cannot agree with the Hayden Respondents' interpretation. Rather than being a threshold issue, we find that the ultimate decision for a court considering a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens under this statute is whether in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state. W. Va.Code § 56-1-1a(a). To make such a determination, the statute directs courts to consider the eight enumerated factors. Id. Specifically, the statute states [i]n determining whether to grant a motion to stay or dismiss an action . . . under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court shall consider: [factors (1)-(8)]. Id. (emphasis added). The Legislature's use of the term shall in this context is significant. Indeed, `[i]t is well established that the word shall, in the absence of language in the statute showing a contrary intent on the part of the Legislature, should be afforded a mandatory connotation. Syllabus Point 1, Nelson v. West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Board, 171 W.Va. 445, 300 S.E.2d 86 (1982). Syllabus point 1, E.H. v. Matin, 201 W.Va. 463, 498 S.E.2d 35 (1997). Syl. Pt. 6, Foster Found. v. Gainer, ___ W.Va. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (2011). Here, the Legislature's use of the word shall, is clearly international, given that it used the permissive word may in other contexts within this statute. Thus, the term must be afforded a mandatory connotation in this context. [6] Consequently, we hold that, by using the term shall, the Legislature has mandated that courts must consider the eight factors enumerated in West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a (Supp.2010), as a means of determining whether, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, a claim or action should be stayed or dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens. Unlike the Hayden Respondents, Respondent Hall does not dispute that courts must consider the eight enumerated factors. Instead, he contends that the Mylan Petitioners have not presented any evidence proving that Judge Bailey failed to consider those factors. Respondent Hall acknowledges that Judge Bailey did not make specific findings as to each factor, but points out that those factors were argued by the parties in their briefs and during the hearing below. Thus, he contends, it is reasonable to infer that Judge Bailey did, in fact, consider the relevant factors even if she did not make findings on the record as to each. Respondent Hall further maintains that nothing in the statute requires a court to make findings as to each factor; rather, courts are simply directed to consider the factors. Although Respondent Hall is correct that nothing in the record proves that Judge Bailey failed to consider the eight factors, the fact that this Court must engage in speculation as to whether the lower court did followed the statutory mandate is, itself, the problem. There is simply no way for this Court to know whether either of the judges below properly considered all of the factors required by the statute when neither set forth findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining how they weighed those factors. Lower courts have often been required to make findings of fact and conclusions of law to enable this Court to engage in meaningful appellate review of a given issue. See Stone Brooke Ltd. P'ship v. Sisinni, 224 W.Va. 691, 706 n. 14, 688 S.E.2d 300, 315 n. 14 (2009) (Requiring a circuit court to conduct a particular analysis and to memorialize its findings of fact and conclusions of law with regard thereto is consistent with other decisions of this Court imposing similar requirements in other contexts.). For example, in Turley v. Keesee, 218 W.Va. 231, 624 S.E.2d 578 (2005), we required that family courts clearly address certain enumerated factors contained in the statute, after noting that the Legislature [had] gone to great lengths to enumerate the factors listed in that statute. Id. at 234, 624 S.E.2d at 581. The Legislature has similarly gone to great lengths to enumerate eight factors which must be considered in determining whether to grant or deny a motion on the basis of forum non conveniens. As previously noted, lower court decisions on such motions should only be reversed if the lower court abused its discretion. See Cannelton, 194 W.Va. 186, 460 S.E.2d 1, at Syl. Pt. 3. This Court cannot determine whether an abuse of discretion has occurred if the lower court does not record its factual findings or legal conclusions. [7] Accordingly, we now hold that in all decisions on motions made pursuant to West Virginia Code § 56-1-1a (Supp. 2010), courts must state findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each of the eight factors listed for consideration under subsection (a) of that statute. Such findings and conclusions are necessary to enable this Court to engage in meaningful appellate review, if such is requested.