Court Opinion

ID: 9368761
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-06 22:00:27.592649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:10.725890
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                      For the First Circuit

No. 21-1702

                    MEDTRONIC MEDICAL CR SRL,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

ELIESER FELICIANO-SOTO; INNOVATIVE ENGINEERING CORP.; INNOVATIVE
         ENGINEERING, LLC; JOSÉ ENRIQUE SANTANA-CRIADO,

                      Defendants, Appellees.

          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

         [Hon. Daniel R. Domínguez, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                  Kayatta, Thompson, and Gelpí,
                         Circuit Judges.

     Yaakov M. Roth, with whom Ana Maria Cristina Pérez Soto, Marco
P. Basile, and Jones Day were on brief, for appellant.
     Raúl S. Mariani Franco, with whom Mariani Franco Law, PSC was
on brief, for appellee Elieser Feliciano-Soto.
     Luis G. Rullán-Marín, with whom Law Offices of Luis G. Rullán,
PSC was on brief, for appellees Innovative Engineering Corp.,
Innovative Engineering, LLC, and José Enrique Santana-Criado.
February 6, 2023
                 THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.    This appeal asks us to weigh

in on the propriety of the district court's dismissal of the

complaint filed below by Appellant, Medtronic Medical CR SRL

("Medtronic").        We write primarily for the parties, assuming their

familiarity with the facts underlying Medtronic's complaint, the

district court's reasoning in dismissing it based on the doctrine

of forum non conveniens, the various appellate issues presented,

and the assorted arguments made before us.         We'll lay out only the

information and context necessary to explain our reasoning and the

next steps dictated by that reasoning.            As we will explain, we

remand this matter to the district court              for further     review

consistent with this opinion.

                 Medtronic, a Costa Rica limited liability company, filed

its       suit     under   the   Racketeering    Influence   and     Corrupt

Organizations Act ("RICO").         The case arises from what Medtronic

says were fraudulent schemes orchestrated by Puerto Rico residents

Elieser Feliciano-Soto ("Feliciano") and José Enrique Santana-

Criado ("Santana," and, collectively, "Appellees").1               Appellees

successfully moved to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non

      1There are other individuals named in the complaint, but our
disposition of this appeal presently eliminates any need to
consider the significance, if any, of that fact. In addition, the
Santana-and-Feliciano-operated Innovative Engineering Corp. and
Innovative Engineering, LLC, alleged to be part of the enterprise
that stole from and defrauded Medtronic, are named defendants and
also appellees before us.

                                     - 3 -
conveniens, urging that Costa Rica was an adequate alternative

forum and the private and public interest factors to be considered

weighed in favor of dismissal.           Based on the facts as they stood

at the time the motions to dismiss were before it, the district

court    concluded,      inter   alia:     Costa   Rica   was    an   adequate

alternative forum, Medtronic Med. CR SRL v. Soto, No. 20-1165,

2021 WL 4192105,         at *11 (D.P.R. July 27, 2021); the private

interest factors weighed in favor of Costa Rica as the forum since

"all    employees   of    Medtronic-CR    --   except   for   [Feliciano   and

Santana] -- . . . appear to be Costa Rican nationals," id., the

majority of events allegedly transpired in Costa Rica, id., and

the district court would lack the ability to compel Costa Rican

witnesses to appear for testimony, id. at *12-13; and the public

interest factors likewise overall favored trial in Costa Rica,

which "holds a more substantial interest in [Medtronic's] claims,"

id. at *14.

            Medtronic timely appealed, persuasively arguing that the

district court committed error in a handful of reversal-worthy

ways. For example, as an overarching matter, Medtronic asseverates

that the district court consistently misconstrued the burden that

Appellees -- not Medtronic -- needed to carry.                Medtronic urges

that the district court never made the threshold finding that all

defendants would be amenable to service in Costa Rica, instead

concluding that only one had so represented, and that was a factor

                                     - 4 -
that was "weight[ed]" in its analysis.     Id. at *10.   And, says

Medtronic, the district court not only applied the wrong legal

standard in assessing dismissal, but also misbalanced the private

and public interest factors.   Appellees, of course, disagree with

all of this.

          In the normal course, our appellate task would be to

assay the district court's reasoning and examine the parties'

arguments against and in favor of that reasoning, seeing how all

of it maps onto our precedent.    But an important and potentially

game-changing event transpired in the wake of the district court's

dismissal:     A grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico handed

down a June 30, 2022 federal indictment of Feliciano and Santana

on charges that arise from the same acts and events Medtronic's

complaint alleges comprise the basis for its civil RICO claim.2

     2 Appellees protest Medtronic's mention of the indictment in
its July 8, 2022 Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) submission. They urge that
Medtronic "abuse[d]" the Rule 28 process by impermissibly adding
the indictment to the appellate record since it is not a
"submission of 'pertinent and significant authorities.'" Instead,
it reflects only a grand jury's opinion and should thus be stricken
from the appellate record.
     Irrespective of whether Rule 28 permits a party to inform us
of pertinent factual events, we may take judicial notice of this
critical development because "[i]t is well-accepted that federal
courts may take judicial notice of proceedings in other courts if
those proceedings have relevance to the matters at hand." Kowalski
v. Gagne, 914 F.2d 299, 305 (1st Cir. 1990); see also Maher v.
Hyde, 272 F.3d 83, 86 n.3 (1st Cir. 2001) (same); United States v.
Gordon, 634 F.2d 639, 642 (1st Cir. 1980) (observing that a
district court could take judicial notice of a grand jury's federal
indictment -- even one in another district).
     Relatedly, we may also take judicial notice of the fact that

                               - 5 -
Specifically, the sealed indictment reflects that Feliciano and

Santana have been indicted for violating federal criminal laws

prohibiting conspiracy to commit wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1349) and

money laundering conspiracies (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)).

           As a simple function of the timeline here, when the

district court fielded the motions to dismiss and conducted its

forum non conveniens analysis, the indictment didn't yet exist.

We have no way of knowing how this intervening factual development,

which necessarily shifts the landscape of this case in fundamental

ways,    would   have   impacted     the    district    court's    decision.

Foundationally,    it's   possible    the    district   court     would   have

approached the motions to dismiss quite differently.              Whether the

District of Puerto Rico is in a better position to keep watch over

all proceedings, both civil and criminal, is in the mix.              Perhaps

the district court would have stayed the civil case, alert to the

effect of the criminal case on the civil (and/or vice versa).3

the criminal case docket reflects that both Feliciano and Santana
have since been arrested and released on bail (with "standard
conditions of release"), and their travel is restricted (Santana
is permitted to travel only "between Puerto Rico and Florida in
coordination with the U.S. Probation Office," and Feliciano,
having surrendered his passport, is unable to leave Puerto Rico
without getting permission from the district court).
     We do not take notice of any of this, as Appellees worry,
with an eye towards prejudging Appellees' civil or criminal
culpability. We consider this information only inasmuch as it has
bearing on what happens next, as we'll explain.
     3 We pause to observe that should Appellees be found culpable
in the criminal action, that might have bearing on the civil
action; so too might a civil recovery factor into a criminal

                                   - 6 -
And, as things now stand, Puerto Rico is the forum for the criminal

case against Appellees, who at this time are not permitted to

journey beyond Puerto Rico (or, in Santana's case, Florida).

Relative to all of this, we similarly cannot know how the shift in

factual circumstances might have influenced specific arguments

advanced by Medtronic or Appellees, whether before us or the

district court.

          The point is that the indictment changes things.4           It's

unclear to what extent and in what ways the district court's

analysis would have been affected, but this much is clear:             At

this juncture, these intervening and developing circumstances have

prompted us to pause and consider the most efficient, prudential

path forward.     Having done so, we decline to weigh in on the

district court's analysis at this time.

          Our   case   law   teaches   that   a   forum   non   conveniens

examination -- probing whether "the chosen forum (despite the

restitution proceeding.      See 18 U.S.C.           §§    3663,   3663A,
3664(j)(2)(A), 3664(l), 3664(m), 3771(6).
     4 It's worth noting the appeal of the civil case's dismissal
is impacting the criminal case to some extent, too -- notations in
the criminal case's docket reflect that the government and the
defendants are grappling with issues that are somewhat bound up in
the fate of the civil action.     See United States v. Feliciano-
Soto, et al., No. 3:22-cr-00291, ECF Nos. 28, 30 (indicating that
the government awaits the defendants' responses to the plea offers
extended and how the defendants would like to proceed, with defense
counsel noting possible jurisdictional issues because of the civil
case's appeal, confirming receipt of the plea offers, and
indicating that the pending appeal means the defense "has to wait
to see what happens in the civil case as it may affect this case").

                                 - 7 -
presence of jurisdiction and venue) is so inconvenient that it

would be unfair to conduct the litigation in that place," Curtis

v. Galakatos, 19 F.4th 41, 46 (1st Cir. 2021) (quoting Nandjou v.

Marriott Int'l, Inc., 985 F.3d 135, 140 (1st Cir. 2021)) -- is a

"multifaceted and fact-laden" undertaking, id. at 49.             Movants

must overcome the presumption favoring the plaintiff's chosen

forum.   See Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp.,

549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007).          And assessing whether there's an

adequate alternative forum (meaning, inter alia, all parties would

come within its jurisdiction), Curtis, 19 F.4th at 47-48, balancing

all of the private and public interest factors (a non-exhaustive

list), determining whether the factors "favor litigating the claim

in the second forum," id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting Nandjou, 985

F.3d at 142), and considering "[t]he 'ultimate inquiry'" of "where

trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends

of justice," id. at 48-49 (quoting Imamura v. Gen. Elec. Co., 957

F.3d 98, 107 (1st Cir. 2020)), all require significant scrutiny of

the facts.

           Given the potentially sweeping impact of the indictment

and ongoing criminal case, the district court should be afforded

the   opportunity   to   conduct   anew    the   "fact-laden"   forum   non

conveniens analysis, to reassess the disposition of this civil

case with the benefit of these notable factual developments.            And

so, in light of everything we've observed to this point, and

                                   - 8 -
mindful of the gravitas of abuse-of-discretion review, we conclude

that the most prudent approach and the best way to honor our

commitment to judicial efficiency is to remand to give the district

court the opportunity to reassess the motions to dismiss.                    See,

e.g., Madison Cnty. v. Oneida Indian Nation of N.Y., 562 U.S. 42,

43 (2011) (per curiam) (vacating and remanding to the Second

Circuit so it could "address, in the first instance, whether to

revisit its ruling on sovereign immunity in light of [a] new

factual development"); Kiyemba v. Obama, 559 U.S. 131, 131 (2010)

(per curiam) (vacating and remanding when the detainees seeking

release into the United States had received at least one offer of

resettlement in another country, constituting a "change in the

underlying facts" that "may affect the legal issues presented").

           Our familiarity with the legal arguments here compels us

to offer a few parting thoughts before we go.                While we offer no

holding on any of the merits issues currently poised for our

review, we observe our serious concerns about, for example, the

existence and status of Appellees' agreement to submit to the

jurisdiction    of    a   Costa   Rican   court     and   the     evaluation   of

Appellees' burden of demonstrating that the public and private

interest factors favor litigation in Costa Rica.                In any event, it

strikes   us   as    quite   likely   that    the   advent   of    the   criminal

case -- along with its attendant impacts on litigation of and

proceedings in the civil case, as discussed above -- will play a

                                      - 9 -
substantial role in the district court's reconsideration of the

dismissal motions.

          For   the   foregoing    reasons,   we   vacate   the   district

court's Opinion and Order and remand to the district court for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.       Each side shall

bear its own costs.

                                  - 10 -