Opinion ID: 623016
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Article 3549(B)

Text: Louisiana Civil Code Article 3549 provides the rules governing prescription, i.e., the statute of limitations provisions. It first states that when the substantive law of Louisiana would apply to the merits of an action brought in that state, Louisiana's prescription law applies. Art. 3549(A). When, as here, the substantive law of another state is applicable to the merits, Article 3549(B) provides a different set of rules: When the substantive law of another state would be applicable to the merits of an action brought in this state, the prescription and peremption law of this state applies, except as specified below: (1) If the action is barred under the law of this state, the action shall be dismissed unless it would not be barred in the state whose law would be applicable to the merits and maintenance of the action in this state is warranted by compelling considerations of remedial justice. Id. art. 3549(B) (emphasis added). We are concerned only with the exception under Article 3549(B)(1). It applies when (1) the action is barred under Louisiana prescription law (2) but not under the prescription law of the state whose substantive law applies to the merits of the action. Id. art. 3549 cmt. (d). The plaintiffs argue their claims satisfy this exception. If so, the action is barred (3) unless maintenance of the action in Louisiana is warranted by compelling considerations of remedial justice. Id. art. 3549(B)(1); see also id. art. 3549(B)(1) cmts. (d)-(f). Of these three conditions for maintenance of the suit, there is no dispute that the one-year Louisiana period for filing was not met. We thus must analyze whether Iraqi law would allow the suit to proceed and, if so, whether compelling considerations of remedial justice warrant the suit.
There are two considerations in determining whether the action would be barred under Iraqi law. The first is whether CPA Order 17, effectively a component of Iraqi law for our purposes, bars the suit in the manner relevant under the Louisiana Civil Code Article 3549(B). That Code section is entitled Law governing liberative prescription. The potential bar of another state becomes relevant only when the prescription and peremption law of this state, i.e., Louisiana, would bar the suit. La. Civ.Code art. 3549(B)(1). Consequently, the bar that is relevant is the comparable limitations period in the foreign state. It could be argued that because this specific claim cannot be brought in Iraq due to CPA Order 17, it is barred for all purposes including those under Article 3549. It would be fair to say that Iraqi courts at the time of Sergeant Everett's death would not entertain a suit brought against a Louisiana-resident company who contracted with the Coalition Provisional Authority and whose alleged negligence while performing under that contract caused the death of a service member in Iraq. Thus, perhaps there is no limitations period applicable to such a suit that can be applied. Whether that is the right view, or whether we only need to know what the Iraqi limitations period would be for personal injuries claims generally, is a matter to be decided under Louisiana law inasmuch as it is that state's choice-of-law rules we are interpreting. Both Article 3543 and 3549 are relevant. As we have stated, Article 3543 adopts the standards of conduct and safety . . . of the state in which the conduct that caused the injury occurred. La. Civ.Code art. 3543. That Article has been authoritatively interpreted to be based on the sense that the conduct-regulating rules of the jurisdiction in which the conduct occurred should usually apply. When acting outside the state of their domicile, neither the tortfeasor nor the victim should be allowed to carry with them the conduct-regulating law of the state of their origin. La. Civ.Code art. 3543 cmt. (c). Article 3549(B) provides in certain circumstances for applying a more forgiving limitations period from the foreign state whose law would be applicable to the merits of the suit. La. Civ.Code art. 3549(B)(1). CPA Order 17 provides that Arkel is immune from Iraqi legal process, but it does not in any apparent way bar the application of Iraqi law to the conduct if some other forum for the claim exists. Louisiana is potentially such a forum. The language of Article 3549(B) is that a suit shall be dismissed unless it would not be barred in the other state whose law applies to the merits. The provision does not suggest we should examine whether legal process could reach the defendant in Iraq. The bar with which Article 3549(B) is concerned is whether the time for bringing suit has expired in the foreign state. CPA Order 17 effectively prevents an Iraqi court from acquiring personal jurisdiction over Arkel. That sort of limitation is not relevant under Article 3549(B). In conclusion on this issue, we summarize the key provisions. Louisiana choice-of-law rules borrow the substantive law of Iraq for standards of conduct and safety. No one has argued that Iraqi law is without standards of conduct and safety applicable to the kind of event that killed Sergeant Everett. For our purposes, Iraqi law also includes CPA Order 17. Section 4(3) of the Order immunized Arkel from Iraqi legal process. That means Arkel could not be brought before any court in Iraq on the claim. Section 18 of CPA Order 17, claims such as this are to be submitted and dealt with consistently with Louisiana law. We are applying Louisiana law to this claim. We next turn to whether the relevant Iraqi statute of limitation would bar the suit. The plaintiffs claim a three-year prescriptive period applies under Iraqi law. Before we can even decide if that is true, we must first decide whether Iraqi law has been proven under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1.
Arkel contends that the plaintiffs failed to prove Iraqi law because the only English translation of the Iraqi Civil Code is from 1990. At the summary judgment hearing, the district court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving Iraqi law. The plaintiffs have the burden of proving foreign law. Banque Libanaise Pour Le Commerce v. Khreich, 915 F.2d 1000, 1006 (5th Cir.1990). These plaintiffs were obligated to present to the district court clear proof of the relevant . . . legal principles. Id. To determine foreign law, Rule 44.1 states that the court may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The court's determination must be treated as a ruling on a question of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.1. Accordingly, a district court's foreign-law determination is reviewed de novo. Access Telecom, Inc. v. MCI Telecomms. Corp., 197 F.3d 694, 713 (5th Cir.1999). Though proof of a foreign country's law is a plaintiff's burden, the court may engage in its own research on an issue of foreign law, and such research does not require formal notice to the parties. Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.1 cmt. [T]he rule provides flexible procedures for presenting and utilizing material on issues of foreign law by which a sound result can be achieved with fairness to the parties. Id. To prove Iraqi law, the plaintiffs offered two affidavits of Feisal Amin Istrabadi, an expert on Iraqi law. In his first affidavit, Istrabadi discussed Iraq's three-year prescriptive period for delictual acts, i.e., a wrongful act or omission giving rise to a claim for compensation. See Black's Law Dictionary 492 (9th ed. 2009). In his supplemental affidavit, he provided a full-text translation of Article 232 of the Iraqi Civil Code, Iraq's prescription statute for delictual acts (torts), in addition to a website where Article 232 could be found in Arabic. According to Istrabadi's translation, Article 232 states: An action for compensation based upon a delictual act is not allowed after the passage of three years from the date on which the injured party knew of the occurrence of the injury and of the person who caused it, nor is an action allowed in all cases after the passage of fifteen years from the date on which the delictual act occurred. Istrabadi also stated that Article 232 is a discovery statute that begins once the claimant learns of two thingsthe occurrence of the injury and the person who caused it. He further stated that only when both conditions are satisfied does the three-year prescription begin to run. Although Arkel maintains that Istrabadi's translation is inconclusive, it does not put forth any alternative translation of the Iraqi Civil Code. Arkel cites to a website containing a 1990 English translation of Article 232. That translation provides the same understanding: A claim for damages resulting from whatever (kind) of unlawful act shall not be heard after the lapse of three years from the day on which the injured person became aware of the injury and of the person who caused it; in all cases the claim will not be heard after the lapse of 15 years from the day of occurrence of the unlawful act. Iraqi Civ.Code art. 232, available at http:// gjpi.org/library/primary/statutes. [3] We also have examined sources for Iraqi law, under the authority provided by Rule 44.1. We discover nothing to draw into question that the prescriptive period ends three years after a plaintiff becomes aware of the claim and the allegedly culpable party. As Arkel did not put forth any alternative translation and has not suggested how the translation might be inaccurate, we hold that Iraqi law on the period of prescription has been proven. See Northrop Grumman Ship Sys., Inc. v. Ministry of Def. of the Republic of Venezuela, 575 F.3d 491, 498 n. 8 (5th Cir.2009) (foreign law sufficiently proven where party submitted English translations of relevant statutes and opposing party had not alleged that the translation was inaccurate or misrepresented foreign law). Thus, Iraq has a three-year prescriptive period for tort claims that starts on the day the victim became aware of the injury and of the person who caused it. The summary judgment evidence reflects that the plaintiffs did not become aware of Arkel's alleged responsibility for their son's death until December 2005. At the hearing on summary judgment, the district court stated that the plaintiffs had failed to prove what Iraqi law was or that they complied with Iraqi law that might be applicable. The district court's discussion of the issue, however, focused on whether the plaintiffs had satisfied their burden to prove Iraqi law, not whether they had failed to comply with Iraq's statute of limitations. The court did not explicitly address whether, if Iraqi law were adequately proven, the plaintiffs could show that they complied with that law. We decline to determine an issue on summary judgment not clearly addressed by the district court. There was evidence presented in the district court that the earliest date on which the plaintiffs had notice of Arkel's participation was in December 2005. The plaintiffs brought suit in September 2008. Based on the information now before us, the plaintiffs' claims have not been shown to be barred under Iraqi law. A final determination, based on findings of when plaintiffs became aware of the injury and Arkel's possible role, can be made on remand.
Because the action is barred under Louisiana law but may not be barred under Iraqi law, the remaining issue under Article 3549(B) is whether maintenance of the action in [Louisiana] is warranted by compelling considerations of remedial justice. La. Civ.Code art. 3549. The comments to the Civil Code acknowledge that the remedial justice concept was borrowed from the 1987 Revision of Section 142 of the Restatement, Second, of Conflict of Laws. Id. art. 3549 cmt. (f). The Restatement refers to cases where: (1) through no fault of the plaintiff an alternative forum is not available as, for example, where jurisdiction could not be obtained over the defendant in any state other than the forum or where for some reason a judgment obtained in the other state having jurisdiction would be unenforceable in other states; and (2) suit in the alternative forum, although not impossible would be extremely inconvenient for the parties. Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, 1986 Revisions, § 142 cmt. (f)). This exception is intended . . . to be used in only the most extraordinary of circumstances. Brown v. Slenker, 220 F.3d 411, 420 (5th Cir.2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted). There is scant Louisiana caselaw on the remedial justice principle under Article 3549(B), and only one case found the considerations to be compelling. See Smith v. ODECO (UK) Inc., 615 So.2d 407, 410 (La.Ct.App.1993). In Smith, a resident of the United Kingdom brought an action in Louisiana state court for injuries sustained while on a drilling rig off the coast of Spain. Id. at 408. The defendants contended that Louisiana had no interest in the case and that Scotland was the proper jurisdiction in which to sue all defendants because the plaintiff was a resident of the United Kingdom, worked out of the Scotland office, and his injuries were treated in Spain and England. Id. The parties agreed that the substantive law of the United Kingdom applied, but the plaintiff submitted an affidavit explaining why jurisdiction would not lie in Scotland. Id. The court agreed, holding that Louisiana was the only forum with personal jurisdiction over all defendants. Id. at 410. Accordingly, there were compelling considerations of remedial justice warranting maintenance of the action in Louisiana. Id. We examine what is involved in the present suit. First, this action involves a situation where, through no fault of the plaintiffs, an alternative forum is not available. Although both the alleged injury-causing conduct and the injury occurred in Iraq, that country does not provide an available forum because of paragraph 3 of CPA Order 17 § 4. The Texas prescriptive period expired and, as Arkel insisted in the Texas proceeding, that state's courts potentially lacked personal jurisdiction over Arkel. The plaintiffs did not have an alternative forum to Louisiana. Second, even were the plaintiffs' claims not barred in Iraq under CPA Order 17, it would be extremely inconvenient for either party to litigate in Iraq. Arkel is a limited liability company domiciled in Louisiana and the plaintiffs are residents of Texas. For all the progress in Iraqi security that the United States purchased with its blood and treasure, that country might reasonably be avoided as a desirable forum in which Americans can litigate. The security concerns related to litigating in Iraq, and Arkel's exemption from suit there that CPA Order 17 seemingly provides, make the considerations of avoiding suit in Iraq compelling. Arkel contends that the plaintiffs' procrastination should automatically constitute a non-compelling consideration. Arkel also believes it relevant that the suit was filed earlier in Texas, making the current suit little more than an attempt to forum shop. The Restatement of Conflicts, from which the concept of compelling considerations was borrowed, discusses procrastination in terms of a plaintiff allowing the prescriptive period to run in other jurisdictions and being forced to file in the final state to borrow a longer prescriptive period. See Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, 1986 Revisions, § 142 cmt. (g) (noting that most egregious examples of forum shopping occur where a forum entertains a claim not barred by its own statute of limitations, even though the forum had no other contact with the case). Those are not our facts. The plaintiffs sought to borrow Iraq's prescriptive period because their claims had lapsed under Louisiana law. The Texas case was dismissed at least in part because of Arkel's compelling motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas. The plaintiffs brought their action in Louisiana because of the challenges of bringing it in Iraq. See La. Civ.Code art. 3549(B)(1). Viewing the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovants, we conclude the district court erred in granting judgment. The suit is barred under Louisiana prescription law, has not been shown to be barred under the prescription law of Iraq, whose substantive law applies to the merits of the action, and maintenance of the action in Louisiana is warranted by compelling considerations of remedial justice. Id. On remand, the factual issue regarding when plaintiffs received necessary notice will need to be resolved.