Opinion ID: 2833943
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Adequate Alternative Forum

Text: The Gulf Oil factors presuppose that an adequate alternative forum would have jurisdiction over the case. Gulf Oil , 330 U.S. at 507. Pirelli maintains that Mexico provides an adequate alternative forum because Pirelli has stipulated that it will submit to personal jurisdiction in Mexico and will not assert any statute-of-limitations defense based on time that has elapsed since the Texas lawsuit was filed. The Arans respond that Pirelli has failed to establish that a Mexican forum is available, pointing to their expert’s testimony that a law in the state of Tamaulipas , the alternative forum for the Arans ’ suit, “poses a formidable obstacle” to an agreement renouncing prescriptive rights that have not yet accrued. We note that the Arans nowhere state that prescriptive rights have not yet accrued; if they have not, then limitations would not appear to be an obstacle to the Mexican forum in the first place. But in any event, the contingency that a Mexican court might not accept Pirelli’s waiver does not overcome the important public and private interests supporting dismissal that inhere in this case, particularly when the statute authorizes the court to condition a dismissal order on the alternative forum’s acceptance of jurisdiction. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 71.051(a). The federal courts commonly include such “return jurisdiction” clauses in forum-non- conveniens dismissal orders. See, e.g. , Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. , 325 F.3d 665, 681 (5th Cir. 2003) (directing district court to modify dismissal order to include return-jurisdiction clause). The Arans also contend dismissal is inappropriate here because, even if available, the Mexican forum is inadequate in a number of respects. Although they acknowledge that Mexico provides a cause of action akin to negligence, the Arans contend a Mexican forum is inadequate because it does not afford a cause of action for strict liability. The Arans contest the Mexican forum’s adequacy on the additional grounds that its legal system does not provide for a jury, no “American-style” discovery is available, and a Mexican court could not compel the authentication of documents in the United States. The Arans further contend Mexican law does not provide for survival damages and severely restricts damages for death. Presuming that the Arans ’ portrayal of the Mexican law is correct, we do not agree that a Mexican forum is thereby rendered inadequate. That the substantive law of an alternative forum may be less favorable to the plaintiff is entitled to little, if any, weight. Piper Aircraft , 454 U.S. at 246-51. We agree with the Fifth Circuit that “[a]n alternative forum is adequate if ‘the parties will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly, even though they may not enjoy the same benefits as they might receive in an American court.’” Vasquez , 325 F.3d at 671 (quoting Gonzalez v. Chrysler Corp. , 301 F.3d 377, 379-80 (5th Cir. 2002)). As the Fifth Circuit explained in Gonzalez : [W]e start from basic principles of comity. Mexico, as a sovereign nation, has made a deliberate choice in providing a specific remedy for this tort cause of action. In making this policy choice, the Mexican government has resolved a trade-off among the competing objectives and costs of tort law, involving interests of victims, of consumers, of manufacturers, and of various other economic and cultural values. In resolving this trade-off, the Mexican people, through their duly-elected lawmakers, have decided to limit tort damages . . . . It would be inappropriate — even patronizing — for us to denounce this legitimate policy choice by holding that Mexico provides an inadequate forum for Mexican tort victims. 301 F.3d at 381-82. Pirelli has demonstrated the availability of an adequate alternative forum, and the factors that the Arans raise are immaterial to that assessment.