Opinion ID: 2634790
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the convenient forum

Text: As previously stated, the circuit court dismissed UFJ's complaint based upon, inter alia,  forum non conveniens grounds, pursuant to ... the various factors as outlined in Lesser [.] UFJ contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by not enumerating which of the various factors it relied upon or how it applied those factors in reaching its conclusion. In Lesser, this court described the doctrine of forum non conveniens as the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise a possessed jurisdiction whenever it appears that the cause before it may be more appropriately tried elsewhere. For the doctrine to apply, therefore, an alternative forum must exist and the defendant must be amenable to process in the alternative forum. Lesser, 88 Hawai`i at 262, 965 P.2d at 804 (emphasis added) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 84 (1971) (A state will not exercise jurisdiction if it is a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action provided that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff.). We, therefore, first assess whether an adequate alternative forum is available to UFJ for litigating this action against Ieda and LWI. See Lesser, 88 Hawai`i at 262, 965 P.2d at 804; Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 n. 22, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981), reh'g denied, 455 U.S. 928, 102 S.Ct. 1296, 71 L.Ed.2d 474 (1982). An alternative forum ordinarily exists when all defendants are amenable to service of process in the foreign forum. See Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1143 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that alternative forum was available because all defendants had indicated that they would be amenable to service of process in New Zealand); Alpine View Co. Ltd. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208, 221 (5th Cir.2000) (A foreign forum is available when the entire case and all parties can come within the jurisdiction of that forum. (Emphasis added.)). A defendant's agreement to submit to personal jurisdiction of the foreign country satisfies this requirement. Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 768 (9th Cir. 1991) (citation omitted). In the instant case, it is unclear from the record whether Japan, the proposed alternative forum, has jurisdiction over all of the defendants. However, with respect to Ieda, he is a citizen of Japan as UFJ asserted in its complaint. As the guarantor of KKLW's obligations under the Agreement, Ieda specifically consented to the jurisdiction and venue of the court having jurisdiction in the locale of the head office of UFJ or any of its branches, Agreement, Art. 14, when he executed the Guaranty, agreeing to abide by all of the terms and conditions contained in said Agreement[.] Further, at the hearing on the motion to dismiss, Ieda's counsel stated that [Ieda] is considered a Hawai`i resident because he spends so many days a year here, but he spends roughly the same amount of time in Japan. We don't anticipate that they would have any trouble serving him with process.... (Emphasis added.) Therefore, because Ieda is amenable to service of process in Japan, an alternative forum for the dispute existed in Japan. However, dismissal of UFJ's complaint based on forum non conveniens grounds would be inappropriate if the only other defendant in this case, LWI, is not amenable to suit in Japan. We cannot determine from the record whether Japan could be an alternative forum for UFJ's claim against LWI. Because that determination involves a factual finding that is not contained in the record before us, we are compelled to hold that the circuit court abused its discretion in dismissing UFJ's complaint on forum non conveniens grounds. [13]