The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court improperly dismissed a case under the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine because there was the possibility that dismissal based on the statute of limitations might occur in the other available forum.
In Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. ThyssenMn. Const., 703 F. 3d 488 (10th Cir. 2012), defendant moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint under forum non conveniens on the ground that New Mexico was an inconvenient forum and that Canada provided a presently available adequate alternative forum. Plaintiffs had sued the same defendants in Canada and the defendants asserted a statute of limitations defense which, if successful would result in the dismissal of plaintiffs’ case. The Canadian Court had not decided that issue.
The Court of Appeals held that the district court judge had abused her discretion in ruling on the forum non conveniens issue. The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that Canadian law applied and that New Mexico was an inconvenient forum because trying the case thousands of miles away from the Canadian mine where the events occurred would complicate management of witnesses and evidence. However, the Court said that alternative forum must be available and that sometimes an inconvenient forum is the only available forum.
In reversing the dismissal under the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine the Court said “if the Canadian Court decides that the defendants’ statute of limitation defense bars plaintiffs’ case, plaintiffs would be left without an adequate alternative forum.” (p. 496)