La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 August 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. A17A0835.,A17A0835. |
| Citation | 803 S.E.2d 609 |
| Parties | LA FONTAINE et al. v. SIGNATURE RESEARCH, INC. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Jefferson C. Callier, Columbus, Mark Kelley Schwartz, Troy, MI, for Appellants.
David Andrew Olson, Barbara Anne Marschalk, Atlanta, Matthew J. Johnson, for Appellee.
In May 2014, Michigan residents Francis La Fontaine and her husband, Roberto Melendez, (collectively "the Appellants") took a vacation in the Dominican Republic. While participating in a zipline course, La Fontaine was injured when the line collapsed. The Appellants sued Signature Research, Inc. ("Signature"), the Georgia corporation that inspected the zipline, in the state court of Douglas
County.1 The trial court dismissed the suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and this appeal followed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
In Georgia, the doctrine of forum non conveniens is codified in OCGA § 9–10–31.1, which provides that the trial court may dismiss an action if the interests of justice and convenience of parties renders another forum more appropriate. Hawkins v. Blair , 334 Ga. App. 898, 901 (3), 780 S.E.2d 515 (2015). The party seeking dismissal bears the burden of showing dismissal is warranted. Id."The application of the statutory standard to the peculiar circumstances of a particular case is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the trial court." (Citation omitted.) Wang v. Liu , 292 Ga. 568, 569 (1), 740 S.E.2d 136 (2013).
For the purpose of Signature's motion to dismiss, the relevant facts are undisputed. Cumayasa Sky Adventures operated a zipline in the Dominican Republic. In December 2013, Signature inspected the line and certified that it was compliant with industry safety standards.
In May 2014, while vacationing in the Dominican Republic, La Fontaine was injured when the zipline collapsed. She received treatment for her injuries in the Dominican Republic before returning to Michigan, where she continued to receive extensive medical care.
The Appellants initially filed suit in the district court of the Southern District of Florida,2 but the district court dismissed that complaint based on forum non conveniens. The Appellants then filed the instant suit.
Signature again moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, and the trial court granted the motion. Importantly, Signature has stipulated that it will submit to jurisdiction in the Dominican Republic and will waive any statute-of-limitations defenses there, as well as in every other state in the United States in which the claim was not already barred.
1. The Appellants first argue that the doctrine of forum non conveniens does not require that they bring their suit in a foreign country under common law or statute, and that Georgia's forum non conveniens statute unconstitutionally invades a plaintiff's right of access to the courts. They further contend that this right of access to our courts applies equally to Georgia residents and residents of other states. We conclude that Georgia law does not preclude the dismissal of this case on forum non conveniens grounds.
OCGA § 9–10–31.1(a), which codified the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens, provides:
If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state ... the court shall decline to adjudicate the matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens ... [and] shall dismiss the claim or action....
This Court has recognized that "[t]he doctrine of forum non conveniens is unique in the law because it allows a trial court to dismiss a suit that otherwise meets all of the jurisdiction and venue requirements for access to our courts on the grounds of administrative efficiency and convenience." (Citations omitted.) Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co. , 273 Ga. App. 242, 248 (2), 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005), overruled on other grounds by Wang , supra, 292 Ga. at 571, 740 S.E.2d 136.
To the extent that the Appellants argue that the statute is unconstitutional and denies access to the courts, the trial court did not rule on these arguments, and thus, we cannot review them on appeal. Pimper v. State of Ga. , 274 Ga. 624, 627, 555 S.E.2d 459 (2001) ; Brunswick Landing, LLC v. Glynn County , 301 Ga. App. 288, 295 (4) (b), 687 S.E.2d 271 (2009).
The Appellants argue that AT&T Corp. v. Sigala , 274 Ga. 137, 549 S.E.2d 373 (2001), which was superceded by OCGA § 9–10–31.1, mandates that we reverse the trial court's order dismissing the complaint.3 Specifically, they contend that Sigala limits the application of forum non conveniens to cases brought by nonresident aliens for injuries that occur outside the United States, and that the codification of the forum non conveniens doctrine merely reinforces this application. In other words, they argue that neither Sigala nor the statute permits dismissal of a United States citizen's complaint where the alternative forum is a foreign country. We disagree.
The Appellants' reliance on Sigala is flawed because that case was superceded when our legislature enacted OCGA § 9–10–31.1, which codified the doctrine of forum non conveniens.4 See OCGA § 9–10–31.1 ; see also Wegman v. Wegman , 338 Ga. App. 648, 652 (1), 791 S.E.2d 431 (2016) ().5 In enacting § 9–10–31.1, "the General Assembly ... intended to provide that the courts of this state may under certain circumstances decline to decide cases under the doctrine of forum non conveniens." (Punctuation omitted.) Hewett , supra, 273 Ga. App. at 251 (3), 614 S.E.2d 875 ; see also 2005 Georgia Laws Act 1 (S. B. 3), preamble. Indeed, Sigala itself recognized that a specific statute prevails over common law. Sigala , supra, 274 Ga. at 141, 549 S.E.2d 373. Thus, OCGA § 9–10–31.1 controls, and the trial court was authorized to consider dismissal based on forum non conveniens.
2. The Appellants next argue that it was error to dismiss the case in favor of a foreign tribunal under the plain language of OCGA § 9–10–31.1 (b), which requires a defendant to file a written stipulation waiving any statute of limitation defense. We disagree.
The Appellants argue that the use of the phrase "all other states of the United States" limits the trial court's authority to dismiss an action only in favor of a forum in another state.
When considering a statute, the courts will assume the legislature meant what it said and said what it meant, give the text its plain meaning, and view the text in the context in which it appears.
See iHeartMedia, Inc. v. Sheridan , 300 Ga. 771, 775, 798 S.E.2d 223 (2017). Moreover, "[t]he cardinal rule of statutory construction is to seek the intent of the Legislature, and language in one part of a statute must be construed in the light of the legislative intent as found in the statute as a whole." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Fair v. State , 288 Ga. 244, 252 (2), 702 S.E.2d 420 (2010).
This Court has held that the legislature clearly intended to permit trial courts to dismiss suits that would be more appropriately heard in any forum outside this state , including foreign countries. See Hewett , supra, 273 Ga. App. at 250–252 (3), 614 S.E.2d 875 () (emphasis supplied). By its plain language, the statute permits dismissal to a "forum outside this state." OCGA § 9–10–31.1 (a). Simply put, the language in subsection (b) does not restrict the trial court's authority under subsection (a) to dismiss a case in favor of a foreign venue.
If the legislature intended for dismissal to be limited to only those circumstances in which the alternate venue was a sister state, it would have so stated in subsection (a). See iHeartMedia, Inc. , supra, 775, 798 S.E.2d 223 ; Fair , supra, 288 Ga. at 252 (2), 702 S.E.2d 420. Accordingly, we find no merit in the Appellants' claim that the trial court could only dismiss the case in favor of a forum in a sister state.
3. The Appellants next argue that the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss under the factors set forth in OCGA § 9–10–31.1. We find the trial court properly exercised its discretion.
OCGA § 9–10–31.1 (a).
The trial court addressed each of the seven factors under OCGA § 9–10–31.1 and found that they weighed in favor of dismissing the case.
As to the first factor, the Appellants argued before the trial court that although La Fontaine was treated initially...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc.
...appealed the trial court’s decision to the Georgia Court of Appeals on four grounds. See La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc. , 342 Ga. App. 454, 803 S.E.2d 609 (2017).1 Relevant here, the Court of Appeals relied on its earlier decision in Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co. , 273 Ga. App. 2......
- Daniel v. State
-
La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc.
...Andrew Olson, Matthew J. Johnson, Atlanta, for Appellee. Miller, Presiding Judge.In La Fontaine v. Signature Research , 342 Ga. App. 454, 803 S.E.2d 609 (2017), this Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the underlying lawsuit on forum non conveniens grounds. The Supreme Court of Ge......