Iragorri v. Int'l Elevator Inc.

• Decision Date: 06 December 1999
• Docket Number: No. 99-1188,99-1188
• Citation: 203 F.3d 8
• Parties: (1st Cir. 2000) HAIDEE IRAGORRI, ETC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ELEVATOR, INC., Defendant, Appellee. . Heard
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 8

203 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2000)

HAIDEE IRAGORRI, ETC., Plaintiff, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL ELEVATOR, INC., Defendant, Appellee.No. 99-1188

No. 99-1188.

United States Court of Appeals, for the First Circuit.

Heard Dec. 6, 1999.

Decided January 28, 2000.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE. Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge. [Copyrighted Material Omitted] Anthony J. Natale, with whom Julie C. Molloy and Pepe & Hazard LLP were on brief, for appellant.

Catherine R. Connors, with whom Jared L. Tardy and Pierce Atwood were on brief, for appellee.

Before Selya, Boudin and Lynch, Circuit Judges.

SELYA, Circuit Judge.

After Mauricio Iragorri plummeted down an elevator shaft to his death, his widow sued various entities, including International Elevator, Inc. (IEI), alleging culpable negligence.¹ The United States District Court for the District of Maine dismissed the claim against IEI on forum non conveniens grounds. Discerning no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

A native of Colombia, Iragorri emigrated to the United States with his wife and two young children in the early 1980s. The family settled in Florida, and all four became naturalized citizens in 1989. In the fall of 1992, the children, then teenagers, were participating in an educational exchange program arranged by their Florida high school, and the appellant was living with them in Bogota. Iragorri also was in Colombia.

A. The Accident.

The following events took place during the early morning hours of October 3, 1992. Shortly after 1:00 a.m., Iragorri entered the Portada del Mar, a partially finished apartment building in Cali, to visit his mother. The doorman, Danilo Osorio Garcia (Osorio), informed him that the elevators were out of order. Iragorri took the stairs to the fifth floor. The record is tenebrous concerning his condition; Osorio initially told investigators that Iragorri was inebriated, but later testified that he seemed fine.

About ten minutes after Iragorri's arrival, Osorio heard a loud noise. Upon investigation, he claims to have found a screwdriver holding open the elevator doors on the fifth floor. He then heard moans emanating from the elevator shaft and discovered that Iragorri had plunged to the bottom, sustaining fatal injuries.

B. IEI's Role.

IEI was incorporated in Maine in 1924, as a subsidiary of Otis Elevator (Otis). Otis divested itself of its South American interests in 1988, spinning off IEI in the process. From that point forward, IEI operated exclusively in South America (although it retained its Maine charter). It still distributes and services Otis elevators. Although IEI did not install the elevators that serve the Portada del Mar complex, it did contract to maintain them.

Roughly six hours before Iragorri entered the premises, Osorio called IEI to report that both of the building's elevators were out of order. An IEI employee, Gerardo Ortiz, responded promptly and determined that the cable on the left-hand elevator had snapped and that the elevator itself was in the basement. He proceeded to the fifth floor, opened the elevator doors, and worked on the right-hand elevator. When he was through, he claims to have closed the doors. He then went to the basement to inspect the downed left-hand elevator. Once there, he concluded that he would not be able to complete the repairs that day. He showed Osorio what was wrong with both elevators and asked Osorio to turn off the power pending his return. When questioned by officials, Ortiz could not explain how a screwdriver became wedged in the elevator doors (if, indeed, that was the case).

C. The Litigation.

Mrs. Iragorri brought a wrongful death action against a number of defendants in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. All the defendants moved to dismiss. The court retained jurisdiction over the claims against Otis and United Technologies (Otis's corporate parent),² but determined that IEI was not subject to in personam jurisdiction in Connecticut and therefore transferred the case against it to Maine. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Apart from the fact that IEI had been incorporated in Maine (and was, therefore, amenable to service there), neither party had any significant contacts with that jurisdiction. When IEI moved for dismissal in the transferee court, the district judge referred the motion to a magistrate judge, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), who recommended granting it on forum non conveniens grounds. Mrs. Iragorri objected. The district court, affording de novo review, approved the magistrate's report and recommendation.³ This appeal ensued.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Apart from errors of law, forum non conveniens determinations "may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion." Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). Such an abuse transpires if the nisi prius court (1) fails to consider a material factor; (2) relies substantially on an improper factor; or (3) assesses the appropriate factors but clearly errs in weighing them, with the result that its assessment falls outside the universe of plausible outcomes. See Nowak v. Tak How Invs., Ltd., 94 F.3d 708, 719 (1st Cir. 1996); Mercier v. Sheraton Int'l, Inc., 935 F.2d 419, 423 (1st Cir. 1991) (Mercier I). In administering this test, a reviewing court must assiduously avoid twin temptations: it must neither substitute its judgment for that of the district court nor strike the balance of relevant factors anew. See Piper, 454 U.S. at 257.

III. DISCUSSION

When a defendant moves for dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, it bears the burden of showing both that an adequate alternative forum exists and that considerations of convenience and judicial efficiency strongly favor litigating the claim in the alternative forum. See Mercier I, 935 F.2d at 423-24. Courts generally deem the first requirement satisfied if the defendant demonstrates that the alternative forum addresses the types of claims that the plaintiff has brought and that the defendant is amenable to service of process there. See Piper, 454 U.S. at 254 n.22. The second requirement evokes a more sophisticated balancing: the defendant must show that the compendium of factors relevant to the private and public interests implicated by the case strongly favors dismissal. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947); Mercier I, 935 F.2d at 423-24.

The Supreme Court has provided substantial guidance on the nature of the factors to be assayed in the second step of the analysis. Considerations relevant to the litigants' private interests include "the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; [and the] possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action." Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508. Evaluating private interests also requires the trial judge to pay heed to "all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive." Id. We have no doubt that the flip side of this coin has equal pertinence; the judge must consider those factors that threaten to make trial more cumbersome, prolong it, or drive up costs. Factors relevant to the public interest include such things as the administrative difficulties of docket congestion; the general goal of "having localized controversies decided at home," and concomitantly, ease of access to the proceedings on the part of interested citizens; the trier's relative familiarity with the appropriate rules of decision; and the burdens of jury duty. Id. at 508-09.

In all events, as to both private and public interests, flexibility is the watchword. See Piper, 454 U.S. at 249-50. The compendia provided by the Court comprise a helpful starting point, but not every item applies in every case and, in the last analysis, the list of factors is illustrative rather than all-inclusive. "[T]he ultimate inquiry is where trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice." Koster v. (American)Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 527 (1947).

With this brief preface, we test the district court's decision against the two-step framework.

A. Adequate Alternative Forum.

In considering a forum non conveniens claim, an inquiring court should begin by determining the existence vel non of an adequate alternative forum for the prosecution of the action.⁴ The court below impliedly concluded that Colombia constitutes such a forum. The appellant assails this conclusion on two bases.

As an initial matter, the appellant complains that the district court failed to afford due consideration to her family's apprehensions anent their personal safety should they be forced to litigate in Colombia. In her view, the attendant dangers, as evidenced by the State Department's advisory against unnecessary travel (especially to Cali), make Colombia an inadequate or unavailable alternative to the United States for the purpose of litigating her claim.

The district court explored this argument at some length.⁵ In the end, it found no particularized evidence that travel to Colombia would imperil the Iragorris, and, relatedly, found much evidence that they would be able to negotiate the country more easily than ordinary American visitors. These factors, the court concluded, neutralized the force of the State Department's warning. We cannot term this judgment unreasonable.

There are, of course, cases in which courts have discussed the possibility that the dangers inherent in traveling to a proposed forum might make litigation there a practical impossibility (and, thus, no real alternative). See, e.g., Rasoulzadeh v. Associated Press, 574 F. Supp. 854, 861 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), aff'd, 767 F.2d 908 (2d Cir. 1985). But see Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., No. 95 CIV. 9006 LAP, 1999 WL 228360, at *3-4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 20, 1999) (...