Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp.

Decision Date05 March 2007
Docket NumberNo. 06–102.,06–102.
Citation75 BNA USLW 4126,549 U.S. 422,127 S.Ct. 1184,167 L.Ed.2d 15
PartiesSINOCHEM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD., Petitioner, v. MALAYSIA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus*

A contract between petitioner(Sinochem), a Chinese state-owned importer, and a domestic corporation not a party here (Triorient) provided that Sinochem would purchase steel coils and that Triorient would be paid under a letter of credit by producing a valid bill of lading certifying that the coils had been loaded for shipment to China on or before April 30, 2003.Triorient subchartered a vessel owned by respondent(Malaysia International), a Malaysian company, to transport the coils, and hired a stevedoring company to load the coils in Philadelphia.A bill of lading, dated April 30, 2003, triggered payment under the letter of credit.Sinochem petitioned a Chinese admiralty court for preservation of a maritime claim against Malaysia International and arrest of the vessel, alleging that the Malaysian company had falsely backdated the bill of lading.The Chinese court ordered the ship arrested, and Sinochem timely filed a complaint in that tribunal.The Chinese admiralty court rejected Malaysia International's jurisdictional objections to Sinochem's complaint, and that ruling was affirmed on appeal.

Shortly after the Chinese admiralty court ordered the vessel's arrest, Malaysia International filed this action in a United States District Court, asserting that Sinochem's preservation petition to the Chinese court contained misrepresentations, and seeking compensation for losses sustaineddue to the ship's arrest.Sinochem moved to dismiss on several grounds, including lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction and the doctrine of forum non conveniens, under which a federal district court may dismiss an action if a court abroad is the more appropriate and convenient forum for adjudicating the controversy.The District Court determined it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the cause, concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction over Sinochem under Pennsylvania law, conjectured that limited discovery might reveal that it had personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), but dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, finding that the case could be adjudicated adequately and more conveniently in the Chinese courts.Agreeing that there was subject-matter jurisdiction and that personal jurisdiction could not be resolved sans discovery, the Third Circuit panel held that the District Court could not dismiss the case under the forum non conveniens doctrine unless and until it determined definitively that it had both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.

Held:A district court has discretion to respond at once to a defendant's forum non conveniens plea, and need not take up first any other threshold objection.In particular, a court need not resolve whether it has authority to adjudicate the cause (subject-matter jurisdiction) or personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it determines that, in any event, a foreign tribunal is the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case.Pp. 1190 – 1194.

(a) A federal court has discretion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds “when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear [the] case, and ... trial in the chosen forum would establish ... oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant ... out of all proportion to plaintiff's convenience, or ... the chosen forum [is] inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own administrative and legal problems.”American Dredging Co. v. Miller,510 U.S. 443, 447–448, 114 S.Ct. 981, 127 L.Ed.2d 285.Such a dismissal reflects a court's assessment of a “range of considerations, most notably the convenience to the parties and the practical difficulties that can attend the adjudication of a dispute in a certain locality.”Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co.,517 U.S. 706, 723, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1.A defendant invoking forum non conveniens ordinarily bears a heavy burden in opposing the plaintiff's chosen forum.When the plaintiff's choice is not its home forum, however, the presumption in the plaintiff's favor “applies with less force,” for the assumption that the chosen forum is appropriate is then “less reasonable.”Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,454 U.S. 235, 255–256, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419. Pp. 1190 – 1191.

(b) Although a federal court generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over the cause (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the parties(personal jurisdiction), seeSteel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment,523 U.S. 83, 93–102, 118 S.Ct. 1003, 140 L.Ed.2d 210, there is no mandatory sequencing of nonmerits issues, seeRuhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,526 U.S. 574, 584, 119 S.Ct. 1563, 143 L.Ed.2d 760.A court has leeway “to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits,”id., at 585, 119 S.Ct. 1563. Pp. 1191 – 1192.

(c)Forum non conveniens is a nonmerits ground for dismissal.SeeAmerican Dredging,510 U.S., at 454, 114 S.Ct. 981;Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp.,486 U.S. 140, 148, 108 S.Ct. 1684, 100 L.Ed.2d 127.A district court therefore may dispose of an action by a forum non conveniens dismissal, bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.Forum non conveniens, like other threshold issues, may involve a brush with “factual and legal issuesof the underlying dispute.”Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard,486 U.S. 517, 529, 108 S.Ct. 1945, 100 L.Ed.2d 517.But the critical point, rendering a forum non conveniens determination a nonmerits issue that can be determined before taking up jurisdictional inquiries is this: Resolving a forum non conveniens motion does not entail any assumption by the court of substantive law-declaring power.Statements in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055, that forum non conveniens can never apply if there is absence of jurisdiction,”id., at 504, 67 S.Ct. 839, and that [i]n all cases in which ... forum non conveniens comes into play, it presupposes at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to process,”id., at 506–507, 67 S.Ct. 839, account in large part for the Third Circuit's conclusion.Those statements draw their meaning from the context in which they were embedded.Gulf Oil answered in the affirmative the question whether a court that had jurisdiction over the cause and the parties and was a proper venue could nevertheless dismiss the action under the forum non conveniens doctrine.Gulf Oil did not address the issue decided here: whether a federal court can presume, rather than dispositively decide, its jurisdiction before dismissing under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.The quoted statements, confined to the setting in which they were made, are no hindrance to the decision reached today.The Third Circuit's further concern—that a court failing first to establish its jurisdiction could not condition a forum non conveniens dismissal on the defendant's waiver of any statute of limitations defense or objection to the foreign forum's jurisdiction, and thus could not shield the plaintiff against a foreign tribunal's refusal to entertain the suit—is not implicated on these facts.Malaysia International faces no genuine risk that the more convenient forum will not take up the case.This Court therefore need not decide whether a court conditioning a forum non conveniens dismissal on the waiver of jurisdictional or limitations defenses in the foreign forum must first determine its own authority to adjudicate the case.Pp. 1191 – 1194.

(d) This is a textbook case for immediate forum non conveniens dismissal.The District Court's subject-matter jurisdiction presented an issue of first impression in the Third Circuit, and was considered at some length by the courts below.Discovery concerning personal jurisdiction would have burdened Sinochem with expense and delay to scant purpose: The District Court inevitably would dismiss the case without reaching the merits, given its well-considered forum non conveniens appraisal.Judicial economy is disserved by continuing litigation in the District Court given the proceedings long launched in China.And the gravamen of Malaysia International's complaint—misrepresentations to the Chinese admiralty court in securing the vessel's arrest in China—is an issue best left for determination by the Chinese courts.If, as in the mine run of cases, a court can readily determine that it lacks jurisdiction over the cause or the defendant, the proper course would be to dismiss on that ground.But where subject-matter or personal jurisdiction is difficult to determine, and forum non conveniens considerations weigh heavily in favor of dismissal, the court properly takes the less burdensome course.Pp. 1193 – 1194.

436 F.3d 349, reversed and remanded.

GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Gregory A. Castanias, for Petitioner.

Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, for United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the Petitioner.

Ann-Michele G. Higgins, for Respondent.

Stephen M. Hudspeth, Wilton, CT, Peter J. Wang, Z. Alex Zhang, Jones Day, People's Republic of China, Gregory A. Castanias, Victoria Dorfman, Jones Day, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.

Ann-Michele G. Higgins, Joshua Bachrach, Kevin L. McGee, Rawle & Henderson LLP, Philadelphia, PA, for Respondent.

Justice GINSBURGdelivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the doctrine of forum non conveniens, under which a federal district court may dismiss an action on the ground that a court abroad is the more appropriate and convenient forum for adjudicating the controversy.We granted review to decide a question that has divided the Courts of Appeals:...

To continue reading

Request your trial

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions

  • AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

vLex
2464 cases
  • Butcher v. Wendt
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • September 22, 2020
    ...before considering jurisdiction because it is a threshold, non-merits consideration. Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp. , 549 U.S. 422, 425, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007) ("We hold that a district court has discretion to respond at once to a defendant's forum non co......
  • Kan. Natural Res. Coal. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • August 24, 2020
    ...economy, however, we then proceed to the question of subject matter jurisdiction. See Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp. , 549 U.S. 422, 431, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007) ("[T]here is no mandatory ‘sequencing of jurisdictional issues.’ " (quoting Ruhrgas AG v. Mara......
  • Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Grane Healthcare Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • March 6, 2014
    ...of a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in suit." Sinochem International Co., Inc. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-31 (2007). Like all other Article III tribunalsestablished by Congress, this Court exercises "[t]he judicial......
  • Californians for Renewable Energy v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency & Scott Pruitt
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • March 30, 2018
    ...standing and mootness. Venue and standing are threshold issues which the Court will address first. See Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 431 (2007). Fororganizational clarity, the question of whether Plaintiffs' claims are moot will be addressed in the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 firm's commentaries
  • Does the Savings Statute Save My Claim?
    • United States
    • JD Supra United States
    • August 26, 2020
    ...to an action. This court should not countenance these conflicting arguments. Sinochem Intl. Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Intl. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430-431, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007) (In the federal system, a court “generally may not rule on the merits of a case without first d......
  • Second Circuit Expands Threshold Issues Reviewable Before Determining Complex Issues Of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 19, 2023
    ...e.g., Patrickson v. Dole Food Co., 251 F.3d 795, 800 n.3 (9th Cir. 2001); Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., 108 F.3d 799, 805 (7th Cir. 1997). 15. 549 U.S. 422 16. Id. at 431. 17. Id. 18. 467 F.3d 1038, 1041 (7th Cir. 2006). 19. 549 U.S. at 431. 20. Id. at 433. 21. Phoenix Light SF Ltd., 2023 WL 30822......
  • Forum Selection Clause Can Preclude PTO Validity Challenges
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 11, 2022
    ...non conveniens, and jurisdiction challenges are inapplicable to IPR proceedings (citing Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007); AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 923 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). However, it found that "it does not follow that......
  • Forum Selection Clause Can Preclude PTO Validity Challenges
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 11, 2022
    ...non conveniens, and jurisdiction challenges are inapplicable to IPR proceedings (citing Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007); AVX Corp. v. Presidio Components, Inc., 923 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). However, it found that "it does not follow that......
29 books & journal articles
  • Case summaries.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 40 No. 3, June 2010
    • June 22, 2010
    ...into the bay; and 5) President Aquino ordered a pollution control board not to enforce a cease and desist order against Marcopper. (590) 549 U.S. 422 (591) M at 432. (592) 28 U.S.C. [section] 1331 (2006). (593) Schnabel v. Lui, 302 F.3d 1023, 1029 (9th Cir. 2002). (594) Franchise Tax Bd. of......
  • The Real Political Question Doctrine.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 75 No. 5, May 2023
    • May 1, 2023
    ...Baker, 369 U.S. at 268-69 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). (216.) See, e.g., Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l. Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 429 (2007) ("Dismissal for forum non conveniens reflects a court's assessment of a 'range of considerations, most notably the convenience to the par......
  • A call for stricter appellate review of decisions on forum non conveniens.
    • United States
    • Washington University Global Studies Law Review No. 11-3, September 2012
    • September 22, 2012
    ...(internal citation omitted) (quoting Piper, 454 U.S. at 254)). (27.) Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (28.) Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 423; Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 70-71 (2d Cir. 2001). (29.) Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 423 (quoting Piper, 454 ......
  • DEFERRING TO FOREIGN COURTS.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 No. 8, August 2021
    • August 1, 2021
    ...(9th Cir. 2017). (106) Id. at 1202. (107) See Imamura I, 371 F. Supp. 3d at 6-7 (citing Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malay. Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 425 (2007)). Another potential benefit to dismissing on the basis of forum non conveniens rather than Rule 12(b)(6) is that the former is ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT