Opinion ID: 70451
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Mexico as an Alternative Forum

Text: Saqui next argues that the district court erred in its decision to grant PCA’s motion to dismiss for FNC. We review a district court’s dismissal on the basis of FNC for clear abuse of discretion. See Gonzales v. Chrysler Corp., 301 F.3d 377, 379 (5th Cir. 2002) (citing Baumgart v. Fairchild Aircraft Corp., 981 7 Case: 08-41059 Document: 00511009113 Page: 8 Date Filed: 01/21/2010 No. 08-41059 F.2d 824, 835 (5th Cir. 1993)). In order for a case to be dismissed for FNC, there must be another forum that could hear the case, and therefore the district court must first determine whether an alternative forum exists. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 n.22 (1981). An alternative forum exists when it is both available and adequate. In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, La., 821 F.2d 1147, 1165 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (citations omitted), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Lopez, 490 U.S. 1032 (1989), reinstated except as to damages by In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, La., 883 F.2d 17 (5th Cir. 1989) (en banc). If an alternative forum is both adequate and available, the district court must then weigh various private and public interest factors to determine whether dismissal is warranted. Id. Saqui argues that the district court abused its discretion in finding Mexico to be an available alternative forum. An alternative forum is available when “the entire case and all parties can come within the jurisdiction of that forum.” In re Air Crash Disaster, 821 F.2d at 1165. Mexico’s availability as an alternative forum was recently addressed by this court in In re Ford Motor Co., — F.3d —, 2009 WL 4828740 (5th Cir. Dec. 16, 2009). In re Ford Motor Co. involves claims transferred from the MDL court back to the Western District of Texas. The court noted that “[w]e have held in numerous cases that Mexico is an available forum for tort suits against a defendant that is willing to submit to jurisdiction there.” Id. at . It recounted this court’s decisions in Gonzales v. Chrysler Corp., 301 F.3d 377, 380 n.3 (5th Cir. 2002), Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 325 F.3d 665, 671 (5th Cir. 2003), and DTEX, LLC v. BBVA Bancomer, S.A., 508 F.3d 785, 804 (5th Cir. 2007), and explained that 8 Case: 08-41059 Document: 00511009113 Page: 9 Date Filed: 01/21/2010 No. 08-41059 These many decisions create a nearly airtight presumption that Mexico is an available forum. We have held that if a defendant submits to jurisdiction, there is a presumption of forum availability; petitioners have done so here. We have held in tort cases . . . that Mexico is an available forum for tort suits against foreign defendants. “Our rule of orderliness ‘forbids one of our panels from overruling a prior panel.’” Thus, unless this court en banc or the Supreme Court decides otherwise, petitioners’ willingness to submit to jurisdiction in Mexico makes it an available forum for FNC purposes, based on the binding precedent of this court. In re Ford Motor Co., 2009 WL 4828740, at  (footnote omitted). The court went on to note that “[u]nless plaintiffs can show evidence distinguishing this case from our precedent, an order from a Mexican court dismissing this exact case for lack of jurisdiction, or reliable evidence of some subsequent change in Mexican law that calls our earlier determinations into serious question, plaintiffs cannot prevail in their FNC defense.” Id. Here, PCA has agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Mexican court, thereby making Mexico an available forum. In addition, the district court’s order gives Saqui a right to return to a United States court if the Mexican court refuses to grant jurisdiction. Finally, Saqui has failed to establish that the district court abused its discretion in discounting Dahl’s testimony because of his reliance on Pereznieto’s affidavit. Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mexico is an adequate forum. An alternative forum “is adequate when the parties will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly, even though they might not enjoy the same benefits as they might receive in an American court.” In re Air Crash Disaster, 821 F.2d at 1165 (citing Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 225; Syndicate 420 at Lloyd’s London v. Early Am. Ins. Co., 796 F.2d 821, 829 9 Case: 08-41059 Document: 00511009113 Page: 10 Date Filed: 01/21/2010 No. 08-41059 (5th Cir. 1986)). Saqui argues that Mexico is an inadequate forum because: (1) the amount of damages would be more limited under Mexican as opposed to American law; (2) there exists corruption in the Mexican courts; (3) long delays in the Mexican court system; and (4) a “virtual impossibility” to subpoena out of country witnesses. The R & R thoroughly addressed each of the errors Saqui now points to on appeal. The R & R first found that “the mere fact that the amount of damages would be more limited under Mexican as opposed to American law, does not provide ‘the basis for finding Mexican courts an inadequate alternative forum.’” (quoting DTEX, 508 F.3d at 797). The R & R then found that Saqui failed to support her assertions, or present compelling evidence, that corruption in the Mexican courts made Mexico an inadequate form. The R & R also found unpersuasive Saqui’s argument that Mexican courts are known for their “long delays,” in part because the United States courts are unequipped to compel testimony from nonparty witnesses located in Mexico, just as Mexican courts are unequipped to compel testimony from witnesses located in the United States. The R & R also noted that the case had been stalled in the United States courts because of the inability of the parties to conduct discovery in Mexico. The R & R further found that there would likely be fewer delays in the Mexican courts because the accident occurred in Mexico and involved Mexican citizens and corporations. As mentioned above, this court employs a “clear abuse of discretion” standard of review when reviewing a motion to dismiss based on FNC. Gonzales, 301 F.3d at 379. The R & R thoroughly reviewed Saqui’s claims and found them to be without merit. Saqui failed to “plainly demonstrate” that she is highly unlikely to obtain justice in Mexico, and therefore has failed to establish how the district court abused its discretion in accepting the R & R’s reasonable findings. 10 Case: 08-41059 Document: 00511009113 Page: 11 Date Filed: 01/21/2010 No. 08-41059 The district court determined that the private and public interest factors weighed in favor of Mexico as a forum. Saqui contends that the district court improperly weighed the private factors in its decision to dismiss the case for FNC. The factors pertaining to the private interests of the litigants include: (1) the ease of access to evidence; (2) the availability of compulsory process for the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (3) the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; (4) the possibility of a view of the premises, if appropriate; and (5) any other practical factors that make trial expeditious and inexpensive. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). Saqui argues that PCA failed to meet its burden of showing that the private interest factors weighed in PCA’s favor, because PCA did not present sufficiently detailed evidence of the location of the witnesses and their anticipated testimony. This court, however, has stated that defendants “must provide enough information to enable the district court to balance the parties’ interests.” In re Air Crash Disaster, 821 F.2d at 1165. The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that PCA presented sufficient evidence in support of the private interest factors. PCA established that: (1) the accident occurred off the coast of Mexico; (2) the injured crew members and their surviving families, including Saqui, are citizens of and reside in Mexico; (3) Sandria died while working aboard a PCA owned offshore oil rig that was leased to, and under the control of, Pemex, the national oil corporation of Mexico; (4) the maintenance crew, including Sandria, were employees of GOMPS, a Mexican corporation with its principal place of business in Mexico; (5) PCA did not control the operations or have any employees aboard the vessel; (6) key physical evidence and most of the witnesses to the accident were located in Mexico; and (7) the Mexican National Government investigated the accident, created documents, and conducted interviews and site inspections in Mexico. 11 Case: 08-41059 Document: 00511009113 Page: 12 Date Filed: 01/21/2010 No. 08-41059 This court has held that similar private interest factors weigh in favor of granting a motion to dismiss on FNC grounds. See, e.g., Vasquez, 325 F.3d. at 672-73. Vasquez involved personal injuries resulting from a vehicle crash involving Firestone tires in Mexico. In concluding that the private interest factors weighed in favor of granting a motion to dismiss on FNC grounds, this court noted that: The driver of the vehicle, and all decedents are Mexican citizens. . . . [T]he vehicle and tires were manufactured, purchased, and maintained in Mexico. The vehicle had a Mexican owner, and the trip took place entirely in Mexico. All the physical evidence and medical reports are in Mexico . . . . Federal courts have no power of compulsory process over Mexican citizens, including the surviving driver and passenger, the police, and mechanics who serviced and maintained the vehicle. Id. In this case, the R & R engaged in a thorough review of the private interest factors. Its determination that the factors weighed in PCA’s favor comports with this court’s case law, and is similar to what this court approved as sufficient in Vasquez. As a result, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the private interest factors weighed in favor of dismissal. Although the district court found that the private interest factors weighed in favor of dismissal, it nevertheless weighed the public interest factors and found that they also weighed strongly in favor of dismissal. See In re Air Crash Disaster, 821 F.2d at 1164 (holding that a court is required to examine the public interest factors only if it cannot determine whether the private interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal). The relevant public interest factors are: (1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local 12 Case: 08-41059 Document: 00511009113 Page: 13 Date Filed: 01/21/2010 No. 08-41059 interest in having localized controversies decided at home; (3) the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action; (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and (5) the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. Id. at 1162-63. On appeal, Saqui did not address the public interest factors in her brief, so objections to the district court’s judgment on this issue are waived. See Audler v. CBD Innovis Inc., 519 F.3d 239, 255 (5th Cir. 2008) (“A party waives an issue if he fails to adequately brief it” on appeal.). Even if we were to assume that Saqui did not waive her objections, a review of the R & R fails to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion. The district court considered the public interest factors, and determined that this case does not have a general nexus with Texas that is sufficient to justify Texas’s commitment of judicial time and resources to it. The R & R explained that the record does not contain information relative to court congestion in the Mexican courts. See DTEX, 508 F.2d at 802. The R & R then noted that PCA is a Delaware corporation, that conducted and managed its operations in Mexico. The R & R then determined that “Mexican law likely will apply to this case, or, at a minimum, be critical.” Finally, the R & R determined that jury duty would unfairly burden Texas citizens because Mexico had a far greater interest in the case than Texas. Ultimately, the R & R found that the “case was governed by Mexican law regarding the deaths of Mexican nationals while working for a Mexican company while in the waters of Mexico. Other than the Defendant PCA having an office in Houston, Texas, this case has no meaningful connection to this forum.” The R & R carefully considered each factor. The district court stated that it conducted a de novo review of the R & R and considered Saqui’s objections. The court then accepted the R & R in its entirety. The record fails 13 Case: 08-41059 Document: 00511009113 Page: 14 Date Filed: 01/21/2010 No. 08-41059 to establish how the court’s determination that the public interest factors weighed strongly in favor of dismissal was a clear abuse of discretion.