Opinion ID: 2973704
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Dismissal of Plaintiff’s Domestic Claims

Text: I also do not believe that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the entirety of plaintiff’s complaint while only discussing forum non conveniens as to part of the complaint. The district court said that it was: mindful that a minor portion of the plaintiff’s second amended complaint contains allegations that defendants other than Agroservicios interfered with the plaintiff’s business opportunities after he returned from Argentina, and Argentina may not be an appropriate forum for those claims. However, the plaintiff may sever those claims and file them in an appropriate American forum, although likely not in Michigan, if he chooses. Nos. 04-2505/2548 Duha v. Agrium, Inc., et al. Page 19 Duha, 340 F. Supp. at 801. I have found no requirement that a district court, when faced with a motion on forum non conveniens grounds, either dismiss the entire complaint on forum non conveniens grounds or none of it. Here, the district court, exercising its discretion, determined that the majority of the complaint revolved around conduct and witnesses located in Argentina. The district court left it up to the plaintiff whether or not to re-file his severable causes of action and where to re-file them. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court has discretion to transfer cases to other judicial districts “in the interest of justice.” The deference given to a district court under § 1404(a) is even greater than what we give under forum non conveniens review. See Piper, 454 U.S. at 253 (“District courts were given more discretion to transfer under § 1404(a) than they had to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens.” (citing Norwood, 349 U.S. 29)). The district court would not have erred if it chose to transfer the severed portions of plaintiff’s complaint. Likewise, the district court, in allowing the plaintiff to re-file the severed claims was dismissing without prejudice. Therefore, I cannot find, applying the required high level of deference, that the district court abused its discretion.