When a mass tort happens anywhere in the world, enterprising plaintiffs’ lawyers will try to figure out some angle that will enable them to file suit in the U.S. against somebody, anybody, who is tangentially connected to the tort. We all know why: American courts and especially American juries are known for their generosity. Lord Denning, reportedly the most celebrated English judge of the 20th century, colorfully put it best: “As a moth is drawn to the light, so is a litigant drawn to the United States. If he can only get his case into their courts, he stands to win a fortune.” Smith Kline & French Laboratories, Ltd. v. Block [1983] 2 All E.R. 74 (C.A. 1982) (Denning, M.R.).
So it is natural that someone tried to bring cases here concerning the melamine contamination of infant formula and milk products in China, which reportedly affected thousands of infants in China. Their angle was an American holding company with Chinese subsidiaries that made contaminated milk products. Plaintiffs’ counsel found about 100 Chinese citizens and residents and filed suit in federal district court in Maryland, the holding company’s principal place of business.
Just as inevitable as the filing of the lawsuit in the U.S. was the defendants’ response: they moved to dismiss the case on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that the cases did not belong in the U.S. and should be litigated in China. The court granted that motion in a very interesting decision filed last week. Tang v. Synutra International, Inc., No. DKC 09-0088 (D. Md. March 29, 2010).
The usual private and public interest factors that are part of the forum non conveniens analysis pointed strongly to China as the place where these cases should be heard. China is where all the witnesses and evidence are located; all relevant evidence would have to be translated from Chinese into English; Chinese law would apply; and the plaintiffs themselves live in China. These factors showed that the District of Maryland was clearly a non conveniens place to hear this lawsuit and favored dismissal, the court concluded. Id. at 30-33.
Continue Reading The light rebuffs the moths
Judge Posner on conflicts of law, statutes of repose and limitations, and forum non conveniens
By dwalk on
On Friday, Judge Posner issued an interesting opinion in Chang v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., No. 09-2280 (7th Cir. March 26, 2010). The opinion affirms the dismissal on statute of limitations and forum non conveniens grounds of claims brought against U.S. companies by plaintiffs from Taiwan. Along the way, Judge Posner has some interesting things…
No harm, no foul
By dwalk on
It’s March Madness time, and the language of basketball fills the air. One expression that has moved from the basketball courts to everyday language is “no harm, no foul.” “No harm, no foul” (in tougher games, no blood, no foul) is the response to a claim that a foul should be called for…
Recent law review scholarship
By dwalk on
Herrmann’s time-delayed comments about blogging reminded us of his practice of periodically surveying the law review literature for articles on our favorite topics. We did, and we found the exercise discouraging.
We first looked for recent scholarship on Wyeth v. Levine. We last reported on the scholarship on Levine in October. In days…
Another decision against sharing confidential information
By dwalk on
A friend recently sent us a helpful decision squelching a plaintiff’s proposal to share defendants’ confidential information with anyone who asks. Doriand v. Centocor Inc., 2010 WL 325742 (N.D. Fla. Jan 26, 2010). We noted before the relevant dearth of citable authority on this subject, and we’re glad to see another judicial vote for…
Choice of law, punitive damages, and Harry Truman
By dwalk on
Readers of this blog know that we have strong opinions about many issues. We like Twombly/Iqbal. We hate junk science. And we really, really like preemption.
On some issues, however, we don’t have strong views, such as most choice-of-law issues. There are some choice-of-law issues about which we care deeply – for example we…