Court Opinion

ID: 9901563
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-22 01:00:34.761868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:35.177931
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40487         Document: 00516975982             Page: 1      Date Filed: 11/21/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit
                                        ____________
                                                                                FILED
                                                                        November 21, 2023
                                         No. 23-40487
                                        ____________                       Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                Clerk
   In re Volkswagen AG; Volkswagen Group of America,
   Incorporated,

                                                                                   Petitioners.
                      ______________________________

                           Petition for Writ of Mandamus
                         to the United States District Court
                          for the Eastern District of Texas
                              USDC No. 2:22-CV-506
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          In this federal antitrust and business tort case, Volkswagen, AG and
   Volkswagen Group of America, Incorporated (collectively “Volkswagen”),
   moved to dismiss Prevent USA Corporation’s (“Prevent USA”) claims on
   grounds of forum non conveniens. The district court denied the motion, and
   Volkswagen now seeks a writ of mandamus with this court. Because we
   conclude that mandamus relief is appropriate, we GRANT the petition,
   VACATE the judgment of the district court, and REMAND this case to
   the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
                                   I.      Background

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40487         Document: 00516975982               Page: 2      Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                          No. 23-40487

           After previously bringing suits in both Germany and the Eastern
   District of Michigan, Prevent USA filed this suit against Volkswagen in the
   Eastern District of Texas alleging six causes of action.1 Volkswagen moved to
   dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, among other grounds, arguing
   that the dispute should proceed in Germany. The Magistrate Judge (“MJ”)
   issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) reasoning that
   Volkswagen’s motion should be denied because this court’s holding in Mitsui
   barred antitrust cases from being dismissed on the basis of forum non
   conveniens. See Indus. Inv. Dev. Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., 671 F.2d 876, 890–91
   (5th Cir. 1982). Volkswagen objected to the R&R and moved the district
   court to dismiss the suit or, alternatively, to certify an order for interlocutory
   appeal in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The district court overruled
   Volkswagen’s objections and adopted the R&R, denying its motion to
   dismiss.
                                    II.     Discussion
           The Supreme Court instructs this court to grant mandamus relief only
   upon a showing of “exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial
   usurpation of power” or “a clear abuse of discretion.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
   Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (citations and internal quotation marks
   omitted). Mandamus is appropriate where (1) the petitioner has shown a
   “clear and indisputable” right to the writ; (2) the court is “satisfied that the
   writ is appropriate under the circumstances”; and (3) the petitioner has “no
   other adequate means to attain the relief [it] desires.” In re DePuy

           _____________________
           1
             The six causes of action are as follows: (1) agreement in restraint of trade in
   violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act; (2) monopsonization in violation of § 2 of the Sherman
   Act; (3) tortious interference with business relationship and/or expectancy; (4) civil
   conspiracy; (5) agreement in restraint of trade in violation of Texas antitrust law, Tex. Bus.
   & Com. Code Ann. § 15.05; and (6) monopsonization in violation of Texas antitrust law.

                                                 2
Case: 23-40487      Document: 00516975982          Page: 3    Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 23-40487

   Orthopaedics, Inc., 870 F.3d 345, 350 (5th Cir. 2017). Turning to the merits,
   we conclude that Volkswagen has made the requisite showings on this record.
          A. Clear and Indisputable Right to Mandamus Relief
          First, Volkswagen has shown that it has a “clear and indisputable”
   right to mandamus relief. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381. The MJ’s R&R and,
   consequently, the district court’s decision to deny Volkswagen’s motion to
   dismiss, were based on a reading that this court’s decision in Mitsui
   “effectively established a per se rule that antitrust cases cannot be dismissed
   based on forum non conveniens.” We disagree with this interpretation.
          In United States v. National City Lines, Inc., 334 U.S. 573 (1948)
   (hereinafter “National City Lines I”), the Supreme Court held that the
   doctrine of forum non conveniens did not apply to antitrust cases. See United
   States v. Nat’l City Lines, Inc., 334 U.S. 573, 592 (1948) (“Indeed, for cases
   of this complex type, the uncertainty concerning the outcome of an effort to
   apply the doctrine [of forum non conveniens] might go far toward defeating the
   [Sherman] Act’s effective application to the most serious and widespread
   offenses and offenders.”). Shortly thereafter, Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. §
   1404(a) revising the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. See 28 U.S.C. §
   1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
   justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or
   division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to
   which all parties have consented.”) (emphasis added). The following year,
   the Supreme Court superseded its National City Lines I decision, holding in
   United States v. National City Lines, Inc., 337 U.S. 78 (1949) (hereinafter
   “National City Lines II”) that § 1404(a) made the doctrine of forum non
   conveniens applicable to any civil action, including antitrust. United States v.
   Nat’l City Lines, Inc., 337 U.S. 78, 81–82, 84 (1949).
          Thirty-three years later, this court in Mitsui erroneously relied on

                                          3
Case: 23-40487        Document: 00516975982              Page: 4       Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                         No. 23-40487

   National City Lines I, stating that “the common law doctrine of forum non
   conveniens is inapplicable to suits brought under the United States antitrust
   laws.” Mitsui, 671 F.2d at 890 (citing Nat’l City Lines, 334 U.S. at 592
   (1948)). Five years after Mitsui, comporting with National City Lines II, this
   court sitting en banc revised its precedent and held that there are no
   exceptions to the forum non conveniens doctrine. See In re Air Crash Disaster
   Near New Orleans, La., 821 F.2d 1147, 1163 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc)2 (stating
   that the forum non conveniens doctrine “appl[ies] in all cases regardless of
   their jurisdictional bases or subject matter.”). Indeed, we acknowledged
   there “that a single and uniform approach to the analysis and application of
   the forum non conveniens doctrine best serves litigants and the courts.” Id. at
   1187 n.25. Thereafter, In re Air Crash became controlling law regarding the
   doctrine of forum non conveniens.
           In the matter before us now, the district court declined to conduct a
   forum non conveniens analysis, and instead incorrectly relied on Mitsui to deny
   Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss. In doing so, the district court not only
   circumvented this court’s precedent regarding the doctrine of forum non
   conveniens, it also committed a “clear abuse[] of discretion that produce[d a]
   patently erroneous result[].” In re Lloyd’s Reg. N. Am., Inc., 780 F.3d 283,
   290 (5th Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310
   (5th Cir. 2008)). Despite this being an antitrust case, the district court should
   have conducted a forum non conveniens analysis as mandated by this court’s
   precedent and thereafter issued an order based on its determinations. For this
   reason, we conclude that the district court erred by relying on Mitsui to
   bypass conducting the forum non conveniens analysis, and that the first

           _____________________
           2
             Vacated on other grounds sub nom. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc. v. Lopez, 490 U.S.
   1032, (1989), reinstated in part by In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, La., 883 F.2d
   17 (5th Cir. 1989) (en banc).

                                                4
Case: 23-40487      Document: 00516975982           Page: 5    Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                     No. 23-40487

   requirement for mandamus is therefore satisfied. See In re DePuy
   Orthopaedics, 870 F.3d at 350.
          B. Mandamus Relief is Appropriate Under the Circumstances
          Second, we are “satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the
   circumstances.” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381. As we have determined in previous
   litigation involving these parties, a writ of mandamus is especially
   appropriate in circumstances where the implicated issues have “importance
   beyond the immediate case.” Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 319. This court has
   already established that the forum non conveniens doctrine applies “in all cases
   regardless of their jurisdictional bases or subject matter.” In re Air Crash, 821
   F.2d at 1163. Thus, denying the petition for writ, and upholding the district
   court’s decision, would circumvent our established precedent. Id. Moreover,
   a denial of the petition for writ in this case could have the unintended
   consequences of encouraging forum shopping in this circuit by future foreign
   antitrust plaintiffs. For these reasons, we conclude that the writ is
   appropriate here and thus, the second requirement has been satisfied. See In
   re DePuy Orthopaedics, 870 F.3d at 350.
          C. No Other Adequate Means to Obtain Relief
          Finally, given that a writ of mandamus is not “a substitute for the
   regular appeals process,” we agree that Volkswagen has shown that it has no
   other adequate means of obtaining relief. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380–81. This
   court has previously acknowledged that “[t]here is no adequate way
   immediately to review a denial of [forum non conveniens].” Lloyd’s Register,
   780 F.3d at 290. Here, the district court not only denied the motion to
   dismiss, but it also declined to certify an interlocutory appeal, thus blocking
   Volkswagen from seeking ordinary appellate relief. Furthermore,
   Volkswagen “would not have an adequate remedy for an improper failure to
   transfer the case by way of an appeal from an adverse final judgment because

                                          5
Case: 23-40487      Document: 00516975982          Page: 6    Date Filed: 11/21/2023

                                    No. 23-40487

   [it] would not be able to show that it would have won the case had it been
   tried in a convenient [venue].” In re Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 318–19 (quoting
   In re Nat’l Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 663 (7th Cir.2003)). Accordingly,
   we hold that the third requirement has also been satisfied. See In re DePuy
   Orthopaedics, 870 F.3d at 350.
          D. Remand is the Appropriate Form of Relief
          For the aforementioned reasons, we hold that the district court erred
   in denying Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss and that error is serious enough
   to warrant mandamus relief. See Norsworthy, 70 F.4th at 336. As a remedy,
   Volkswagen seeks plenary relief from this court in the form of a writ of
   mandamus directing the district court to dismiss this case in favor of a
   German forum. Prevent USA, while maintaining that the district court did
   not err by relying on Mitsui, asserts that dismissal is not the appropriate
   remedy even if it conceded that the district court improperly relied on Mitsui.
   “Because [the district court] concluded that Mitsui made a traditional forum
   non conveniens analysis unnecessary, the courts below did not reach Prevent’s
   secondary arguments against dismissal, which analyzed the factual record
   and explained why it does not compel a forum non conveniens dismissal.”
   Therefore, Prevent USA argues that this case must be remanded to the
   district court to make a new determination under a forum non conveniens
   framework. We agree that remand is appropriate.
                              III. Conclusion
          For the foregoing reasons, the petition for writ of mandamus is
   GRANTED. The judgment of the district court is VACATED, and this
   case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

                                          6