Court Opinion

ID: 9498650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:24:00.299934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:58:58.816913
License: Public Domain

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge,
Dissenting.
In essence, this matter involves a claim that Sinochem committed fraud on the Chinese court in the course of securing an arrest of the vessel, and the District Court did not abuse its discretion in determining *368that a balancing of the relevant private and public factors counseled abstention in favor of that court. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the District Court.
Our Court today mandates that the District Court subject Sinochem to discovery and other proceedings in a forum which the District Court rightly regards as inappropriate. That mandate subverts a primary purpose of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. That doctrine is intended to protect a defendant from being compelled to litigate in a forum where it will have to shoulder the burden of substantial and unnecessary effort and expense. A doctrine having this objective should not be applied in a manner that imposes a substantial and unnecessary litigation burden on the defendant, absent some important countervailing consideration. The only countervailing consideration identified by Malaysia is the doctrine that courts without subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction over the defendant are powerless to adjudicate a case or controversy. While this is a valid and fundamental proposition, it does not dictate that the District Court conduct discovery and rule upon its personal jurisdiction over Sinochem before abstaining in favor of a far more appropriate forum.
A court may not assume that it has jurisdiction and then proceed to adjudicate the claim before it. The Supreme Court rejected such a “hypothetical jurisdiction” approach in Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998), “because it carries the courts beyond the bounds of authorized judicial action and thus offends fundamental principles of separation of powers.” The Supreme Court has made clear, however, that this principle is inapposite here:
“[A] court that dismisses on ... non-merits grounds ... before finding subject-matter jurisdiction, [however] makes no assumption of law-declaring power that violates the separation of powers principles underlying ... Steel Company. ” In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247, 255 (C.A.D.C.1998). It is hardly novel for a federal court to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits. Thus, as the Court observed in Steel Co., district courts do not overstep Article III limits when they decline jurisdiction of state-law claims on discretionary grounds without determining whether those claims fall within their pendent jurisdiction, see Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693, 715-716, 93 S.Ct. 1785, 36 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973), or abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), without deciding whether the parties present a case or controversy, see Ellis v. Dyson, 421 U.S. 426, 433-434, 95 S.Ct. 1691, 44 L.Ed.2d 274 (1975).
Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 584-85, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760 (1999).
My colleagues candidly acknowledge that the forum non conveniens doctrine presents “non merits issues” for the purpose of applying Steel Co. and Ruhrgas. They also concede that the result they reach “may not seem to comport with the general interests of judicial economy and may, in this case, ultimately result in a waste of resources.” Op. at 35. Moreover, they are able to cite only one case— Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., 108 F.3d 799 (7th Cir.1997)25 — that arguably requires the re-*369suit the Court here reaches.26
The only rationale tendered for the Court’s result is its assertion, based on Black’s Law Dictionary, that ‘forum non conveniens is the voluntary transfer of a case from one legally competent court to another for reasons of convenience.” From this generalization, the Court concludes that a “court cannot give away something it has no right to have in the first place.” I am unpersuaded.
A court with jurisdiction normally has an obligation to exercise it. The forum non conveniens doctrine is an exception to this rule. That doctrine authorizes a court to decide not to exercise jurisdiction which it possesses, authority that by definition is unnecessary in the absence of jurisdiction. In this limited sense, it is true that “the doctrine of forum non conveniens can never apply if there is absence of jurisdiction.” Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 504, 67 S.Ct. 839. It does not follow, however, that a court may not decide to abstain from exercising any jurisdiction it may have without affirmatively determining the boundaries of its jurisdiction.27 While, for obvious reasons, *370it is important to determine whether the allegedly more convenient forum has jurisdiction to entertain the suit, there is no utility in, and no doctrinal necessity for, insisting that the present forum determine its own jurisdiction before dismissing.
In short, a court “makes no assumption of law declaring power” when it decides not to exercise whatever jurisdiction it may have. Ruhrgas, 526 U.S. at 584, 119 S.Ct. 1563 (quoting In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d at 255). This means that a district court may dismiss on forum non conve-niens grounds without first determining its own jurisdiction. In re Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M. v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukr., 311 F.3d 488 (2d Cir.2002); In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247 (D.C.Cir.1998). I would affirm.

. In Kamel, the District Court dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens and the Court of Appeals agreed with that determination and affirmed. The Court of Appeals also *369found, however, that, while the complaint alleged complete diversity, there was a non-diverse party, and that the District Court, accordingly, had "lacked [subject matter] jurisdiction to rule on [the] forum non conve-niens motion.” 108 F.3d at 805. The Court held that it was authorized by Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 2, as construed in Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826, 109 S.Ct. 2218, 104 L.Ed.2d 893 (1989), to dismiss the non-diverse dispensable party. It did not cite precedent for or explain either (a) its finding that the District Court was not authorized to rule on the forum non conveniens motion, or (b) its apparent conclusion that dismissal of the non-diverse party was a prerequisite to an affirmance.

. The other Supreme Court and Court of Appeals precedents relied upon by the Court are inapposite. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947), holds only that where the "principle of forum non conveniens [applies] a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute.” Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d 795 (9th Cir.2001), aff'd 538 U.S. 468, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 155 L.Ed.2d 643 (2003), was a case removed from state court in which the District Court determined that it had removal jurisdiction and thereafter dismissed on grounds of forum non conve-niens. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court did not have removal jurisdiction and remanded with instructions that the case be sent back to state court. The Supreme Court agreed that the District Court was without jurisdiction, making no comment regarding the relief afforded by the Circuit Court judgment. No issue here relevant was argued before the Court of Appeals. While not discussed by the Court of Appeals, the issue presented by the case was whether in an improperly removed case the District Court or the state court should resolve a forum non conveniens issue. Given the comity considerations, it clearly should be the latter, a result that is, in any event, dictated by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) ("If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). As my colleagues concede, Dominguez-Cota v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 396 F.3d 650 (5th Cir.2005), is based on the faulty premise that forum non conveniens presents merits issues.

. As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia explained in In re Papandreou, 139 F.3d 247, 255-56 (D.C.Cir.1998) (citations and footnote omitted):
Forum non conveniens does not raise a jurisdictional bar but instead involves a deliberate abstention from the exercise of jurisdiction. While such abstention may appear logically to rest on an assumption of jurisdiction, it is as merits-free as a finding of no jurisdiction. By the same principle on which the Court has approved a discretionary declination to exercise a pendent jurisdiction that may not have existed, it would be proper to dismiss on such grounds (if meritorious) without reaching the FSIA [jurisdictional] issue. Similarly, dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction is independent of the merits and does not require subject matter jurisdiction.