Court Opinion

ID: 9847147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:54:42.664116+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:01.910749
License: Public Domain

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. The district court treated forum non conveniens as less than the “exceptional tool to be employed sparingly”1 that it is, and applied it overly aggressively. The district court, as we agree, erred as a matter of law by failing to apply the Lauritzen2 factors to choice of law. While the plaintiff has not made clear how application of the correct factors would change the result, and should have, the error of law in failing to apply the Lauritzen factors affected an already dubious forum non conveniens determination, so we ought to give the district court an opportunity to apply correct law before we say it makes no difference.
Though the death giving rise to this case occurred in Mexico’s waters, the American connections with the case are very substantial indeed. Loya was American, as are his wife — who is personal representative of his estate — and his children. Loya died, as we understand the facts, while scuba diving at the Westin resort in Cabo San Lucas, a death that might have been prevented had the resort used someone competent and properly certified to manage his oxygen tank, and had the potential rescue vessel not passed by without performing a rescue. The Loyas’ lawsuit focuses on the American timeshare and resort companies that they claim ought to have assured higher safety standards to Americans vacationing in their resort in Mexico.
By contrast, in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,3 the Supreme Court decision laying out the forum non conveniens law we must apply, a U.K. air taxi crashed a U.K.owned plane in the Scottish highlands, killing the pilot and passengers, all of whom, along with their heirs and next of kin, were Scottish. And in Lauritzen v. Larsen,4 every substantial connection to the case except for the Cuban location of the injury was Danish, as the Court took pains to lay out:
Larsen, a Danish seaman, while temporarily in New York joined the crew of the Randa, a ship of Danish flag and registry, owned by petitioner, a Danish citizen. Larsen signed ship’s articles, written in Danish, providing that the rights of crew members would be gov*668erned by Danish law and by the employer’s contract with the Danish Seamen’s Union, of which Larsen was a member. He was negligently injured aboard the Randa in the course of employment, while in Havana harbor.5
I agree with the majority that the Death on the High Seas Act controls, and that the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies to Death on the High Seas Act claims. And I agree that under Howard v. Crystal Cruises6 we are bound to apply the Death on the High Seas Act even though Loya’s death was not on what are commonly understood to be the “high seas.” The failure of a passing vessel to rescue Loya falls within the category of traditional maritime activity under Taghadomi v. United States.7
Where we disagree is in the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. I have not found precedent for so aggressive an exclusion of an American plaintiff from American courts under the doctrine in any other case, and I think it is mistaken here.
The Supreme Court decision in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno.8 gives us the necessary guidance. That Scottish air crash, described above,' was properly dismissed for forum non conveniens, and the Court rejected the Third Circuit view that more favorable law, alone, in the plaintiffs choice of forum was sufficient reason to deny forum non conveniens dismissal. The decision reaffirmed, though, that the “plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”9 The rule in Piper is that forum non conveniens dismissal is appropriate only “when trial in the chosen forum would ‘establish ... oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant ... out of all proportion to plaintiffs convenience,’ or when the ‘chosen forum[is] inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal problems.’ ”10 That stringent rule has not been applied in this case. Piper read the Court’s earlier decision in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert11 to mean that “dismissal may be warranted where a plaintiff chooses a particular forum, not because it is convenient, but solely in order to harass the defendant or take advantage of favorable law.”12
Piper carefully qualified its rule that law more favorable to the plaintiff is not a good ground automatically to deny forum non conveniens dismissal. “[I]f the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all, the unfavorable change in law may be given substantial weight; the district court may conclude that dismissal would not be in the interests of justice.” 13 That is the case here. The Loya family has no practical Mexican remedy. The papers set out that their remedy in Mexico would be limited to damages of about $17,000, and that they would be required to spend over $50,000 to secure that remedy.
In addition to the impracticality of any remedy in Mexico, the Loyas face an insuperable obstacle in proving their case there. The decedent’s diving partner is *669unwilling to go to Mexico again. That is plausible, considering the horrible experience, and the deterrent of knowing that Mexican law does not provide compensation if he dies there.
Our disagreement is limited to application of law to facts, but that matters. Piper holds that there is no “rigid rule” governing discretion, just a multi-factor set of considerations, and “each case turns on its facts.”14 The Loyas ought to be able to sue in Washington — their and the decedent’s home — from where they arranged their Mexican vacation with an American company and the Mexican companies it partnered with.

. Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 514 (9th Cir.2000).

. Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 73 S.Ct. 921, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953).

. 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).

. 345 U.S. 571, 73 S.Ct. 921, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953)

. Lauritzen, 345 U.S. at 573, 73 S.Ct. 921.

. 41 F.3d 527 (9th Cir.1994).

. 401 F.3d 1080 (9th Cir.2005).

. 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).

. Id. at 241, 102 S.Ct. 252.

. Id. (quoting Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947)).

. 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947).

. Piper, 454 U.S. at 249 n. 15, 102 S.Ct. 252.

. Id. at 254, 102 S.Ct. 252.

. Id. at 249, 102 S.Ct. 252.