Melford v. Abex Corp.
| Decision Date | 04 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | C.A. PC 11-1172 |
| Parties | JEFFREY J. MELFORD and TINA S. MELFORD v. ABEX CORPORATION, et al. |
| Court | Rhode Island Superior Court |
DECISION
Before this Court is a Motion to Stay Proceedings (the "Motion"), brought by Jeffrey J. Melford ("Melford") and Tina S. Melford ("Tina") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), arising out of Plaintiffs' asbestos litigation filed against numerous defendants, among them Mack Trucks, Inc. and fifteen other joined defendants[1](collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs seek to stay this case (the "Rhode Island matter") in favor of recently-filed parallel proceedings in Louisiana (the "Louisiana matter") on the ground of forum non conveniens. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' Motion, arguing that the litigation should continue in Rhode Island, the Plaintiffs' first choice of forum. Jurisdiction is pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 8-2-14.
In Plaintiffs' Sixth Amended Complaint ( ), Plaintiffs allege that Melford was exposed to various asbestos-containing products from the mid-1960s through 1990 during his employment as a shop mechanic and foreman at an automotive garage, a worker at two oil refineries, and from numerous home renovation projects all located in Louisiana. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants and their agents, employees, and distributors sold the asbestos-containing products to Melford, his employers, and his co-workers despite knowing that the products were inherently dangerous. As such, Plaintiffs allege, Defendants failed to warn Melford and others of the dangers of exposure to asbestos-containing products, breached duties of reasonable care that they owed to Melford and others breached various warranties, and engaged in a conspiracy to injure Melford and others. Plaintiffs contend that Melford developed pleural mesothelioma and related pathologies as a result of Defendants' conduct, incurring substantial pain and suffering and other damages.
Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants and numerous other parties in Providence County Superior Court on February 25, 2011. After engaging in approximately nine months of discovery and trial preparation here, Plaintiffs filed parallel proceedings against Defendants and others in Louisiana on May 2, 2012. Plaintiffs now seek to stay the Rhode Island matter in favor of the Louisiana matter, arguing that a stay is warranted by the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Defendants respond that forum non conveniens, in fact, favors proceeding in the Rhode Island matter. Furthermore, Defendants argue, the "first-to-file" rule also supports proceeding in Rhode Island.
Plaintiffs argue that although the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not "directly applicable" to a motion to stay, the doctrine nonetheless supports staying the Rhode Island matter in favor of the Louisiana matter for a number of reasons. First, Plaintiffs assert that while they did not sue all of the defendants from the Rhode Island matter in the Louisiana matter, the Louisiana matter includes seven defendants over whom this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction. Next, they contend that the Rhode Island matter has stalled because none of the defendants has attempted to complete discovery or obtain a trial date in the past nine months. Plaintiffs further assert that all of the discovery work and preparation that they and Defendants have already performed in the Rhode Island matter would not need to be duplicated in the Louisiana matter. Moreover, Plaintiffs argue, they have strong contacts with Louisiana because they are domiciliaries of Louisiana, alleging a cause of action arising entirely within that state's borders. Plaintiffs further state that all of their witnesses, with the exception of experts are located within Louisiana as well. Finally, Plaintiffs aver that Louisiana law applies to this case, and, as such, a Louisiana court is the best forum to apply that law.[2]
Defendants respond that the forum non conveniens analysis tilts against staying the Rhode Island matter. At the outset, Defendants contend that staying the Rhode Island matter in favor of the Louisiana matter is convenient only for Plaintiffs' counsel because he recently moved his practice to Louisiana—a consideration, they believe, that should not be part of this Court's forum non conveniens inquiry. Defendants further assert that while Plaintiffs are Louisiana residents and could have brought suit in Louisiana, they affirmatively chose to file the instant matter in Rhode Island. Therefore, Defendants aver, this Court should defer to Plaintiffs' first choice of forum.
Moreover Defendants maintain that the recent lack of progress in the Rhode Island matter is attributable to two factors. First they argue, Plaintiffs carry the burden of prosecuting the action but have failed to proceed after filing the Louisiana matter. Second, Defendants assert that they limited their activity in the Rhode Island matter once Plaintiffs filed the Louisiana matter to avoid expending resources in both jurisdictions simultaneously. In any event, Defendants state, they are prepared to go to trial in the Rhode Island matter.
Defendants further argue that denying Plaintiffs' Motion will not prejudice Plaintiffs' ability to proceed against all potential defendants because Plaintiffs are currently proceeding in Louisiana against the seven defendants over whom this Court cannot exercise jurisdiction. Furthermore, Defendants contend, proceeding in Louisiana will force Defendants to duplicate much of the discovery and preparation work that they have already done in the Rhode Island matter, contrary to Plaintiffs' assertions.
Finally, Defendants argue that concluding that Louisiana law applies to this case is premature at best as the choice of law issue has not yet been briefed or decided. Even if Louisiana law does apply, Defendants aver that this Court can employ Louisiana law because it has successfully applied foreign law in many prior asbestos cases.
Forum non conveniens is an ancient common-law doctrine "founded in considerations of fundamental fairness and sensible and effective judicial administration." Kedy v. A.W. Chesterton Co., 946 A.2d 1171, 1179 (R.I. 2008). It "allows a court to decline to exercise jurisdiction when the plaintiff's chosen forum is significantly inconvenient and the ends of justice would be better served if the action were brought and tried in another forum." Id. at 1178. Thus, a court may invoke the doctrine to "resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute." Gulf Oil Co. v Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507 (1947); Kedy, 946 A.2d at 1178-79. Courts are invested with this inherent power because "[a] plaintiff sometimes is under temptation to resort to a strategy of forcing the trial at a most inconvenient place for an adversary, even at some inconvenience to himself." Gulf Oil Co., 330 U.S. at 507; see Kedy, 946 A.2d at 1178, 1180; see also 14D Wright & Miller § 3828 at 6. Therefore, courts apply the doctrine to ensure that "the plaintiff [does] not, by choice of an inconvenient forum, 'vex, ' 'harass, ' or 'oppress' the defendant by inflicting upon him expense or trouble not necessary to his own right to pursue his remedy." Gulf Oil Co., 330 U.S. at 508; see Kedy, 946 A.2d at 1182-83 (citing American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 447-48 (1994)).
The "defendant [traditionally] invoke[es] forum non conveniens . . . [to] oppos[e] the plaintiff's chosen forum." Kedy, 946 A.2d at 1183 (quoting Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007)). (Emphasis added.) "[T]he defendant [also] bears the burden of persuading the court that the plaintiff's choice of forum is sufficiently inconvenient to warrant dismissal." Gulf Oil Co., 330 U.S. at 508. This is a heavy burden in Rhode Island, and the defendant carries it "at each stage of the forum non conveniens inquiry." Kedy, 946 A.2d at 1183.
A Rhode Island court tasked with applying the forum non conveniens doctrine must conduct a two-step analysis. Id. First, the court "must decide whether an alternative forum exists that is both available and adequate to resolve the disputed legal issues." Id. An alternative forum is "available" when "the defendant is 'amenable to processes in the other jurisdiction." Id. (quoting Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 255 n.2). An alternative forum is "adequate" even when the possibility exists that the alternative forum's pertinent substantive law differs from that of the first forum. Id. at 1184 (citing Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 249). However, "if 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." Id. (quoting Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 254); see also 14D Wright & Miller § 3828.3 at 677-82.
Second, the court must "focu[s] on the inconvenience of continuing in the chosen forum by weighing private- and public-interest factors." Id. Our Supreme Court has enumerated the private-interest factors:
(1) the relative ease of access to proof; (2) availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; (3) possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; (4) and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.
Id. (quoting Gulf Oil Co., 330 U.S. at 508). Other factors include the "enforceability of a judgment in the alternative forum, and the advantages and obstacles to a fair trial." Id. at 1184-85. "The convenience...
To continue reading
Request your trial