In Imamura, et al v. General Electric Company, No.19-1457 (1st Cir. 2020), the First Circuit rejected a lawsuit brought by 150,000 Japanese individuals and businesses who said they were “economically devastated” in March 2011 when an earthquake unleashed a 45-foot wave that overwhelmed the plant, causing an explosion and a massive release of radiation. Under Japanese law, all claims related to the disaster must be brought against Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO), either in a lawsuit or an administrative proceeding. TEPCO had already paid out more than $80 billion in claims, partially subsidized by the Japanese government.
The plaintiffs in this case filed suit in Boston, where GE is headquartered, claiming that an American court should allow them to sue an American corporation. The District Court dismissed the suit on forum non conveniens grounds, saying the case should be brought in Japan because an adequate remedy for the plaintiffs? injuries existed there. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that, even if they had a remedy in Japan, they didn?t have any remedy against General Electric. They also claimed an “inherent right” to seek recovery against all wrongdoers, not just TEPCO.
But the First Circuit disagreed. “So long as Japanese courts continue to allow plaintiffs their day in court, where they may obtain full and fair compensation ? regardless of which entity ultimately foots the bill ? there is no meaningful absence of jurisdiction.” The Court continued, “While plaintiffs may not be able to obtain recovery in Japan specifically from GE, Japan nevertheless adequately addresses the same types of claims through a carefully designed ? compensation scheme.”