In litigation arising out of Argentinean automobile accidents involving Ford Explorers with Firestone Tires, Florida appellate court rules that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendants' motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, where Argentinean courts would impose 3% filing fee in this case where Plaintiffs sought large amount of damages
A series of rollover accidents occurred in Argentina, involving Ford Explorers with Firestone tires. The injured parties and the families of the deceased parties (Plaintiffs) brought suits against Ford Motor Company and Bridgestone/Firestone North American Tire, LLC (Defendants), in Florida state court. Defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that the balance of convenience to the parties and witnesses would favor litigation in Argentina's courts. The trial court denied the motions.
The District Court of Appeal of Florida reverses and remands. It finds that that the trial court did not conduct an adequate analysis of the forum non conveniens issue pursuant to Kinney System, Inc. v. Continental Insurance Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996). On remand, the trial court again denied the forum non conveniens motions. Defendants again appealed. The Court of Appeal affirms the lower court's discretionary ruling that Argentina is an inadequate and unavailable alternative forum under the circumstances.
"A Defendant seeking dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds bears the burden of persuasion as to each Kinney factor. [Cite]. The first factor the court must analyze is whether there is an available adequate alternative forum which possesses jurisdiction over the whole case. [Cite]."
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants offered affidavits from Argentinean legal experts containing their opinions of the Argentinean courts' jurisdiction over the case. "Upon reviewing these affidavits, the trial court determined that the existence of jurisdiction in Argentina was arguable and concluded that it could not ensure that an Argentine court would not dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction ... [Hence] the trial court's conclusion that Appellants did not carry their burden of persuasion on this issue was not unreasonable."
"[Defendants]' experts asserted that Argentine law provides causes of action and remedies analogous to those sought by Plaintiffs in the United States, and allows for actual and foreseeable damages, as well as pain and suffering damages. However, Plaintiffs' experts explained that Plaintiffs in Argentina are required to pay a filing fee of 3% of the damages sought in the lawsuit as a prerequisite to consideration of the case."
"The trial court concluded that Defendants did not satisfy their burden of persuasion as to the adequacy of the Argentine forum, finding the 3% filing fee of particular importance to its decision. We find this conclusion to be reasonable in light of the affidavits submitted by Defendants' experts. The 3% filing fee may deprive Plaintiffs of a remedy in Argentina, particularly in cases such as these, where Plaintiffs are seeking a substantial amount of monetary damages." [Slip Op. 5 6].
Citation: Bridgestone/Firestone North America Tire, LLC v. Garcia, No. 4D07 1793 (Fla. App. August 6, 2008).
USA visa and immigration information is available at www.immigrationtelevision.com.
|
