Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ wrongful-death action on forum non conveniens grounds. The court held that the trial court applied the correct standard in determining that the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum, meaningfully assessed competing expert affidavits concerning Philippine jurisdiction and limitations law, and properly conditioned dismissal on the defendants’ stipulations and the possibility of restoring the Connecticut action. The case arose from a 2017 call-center fire in the Philippines that caused the deaths of twenty-nine people.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court applied the correct legal standard under Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc. in determining that the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum.
- Whether the trial court meaningfully assessed the suitability of the Philippines rather than relying solely on the defendants' consent to jurisdiction and service.
- Whether the trial court properly conditioned dismissal on the defendants' stipulation permitting the plaintiffs to bring the action in the Philippines and to seek reinstatement in Connecticut if necessary.
Holdings
- A trial court must determine as a threshold matter whether an adequate alternative forum possessing jurisdiction over the whole case exists; in rare circumstances, including a possible limitations bar that could eliminate any remedy, the court must meaningfully assess the alternative forum's suitability rather than rely mechanically on the defendants' amenability to process.
- A defendant's stipulation to submit to jurisdiction in a foreign forum does not, by itself, establish that the foreign forum is adequate; the trial court must still evaluate the parties' submissions and determine whether the foreign court can exercise jurisdiction and provide a meaningful forum.
- A trial court may condition a forum non conveniens dismissal on the defendants' stipulation that they will litigate in the alternative forum and will not oppose reinstatement of the Connecticut action if the foreign court declines jurisdiction.
Key quotations
“identifying an alternate forum is a prerequisite for dismissal, not a factor to be balanced. If there is no suitable alternate forum where the case can proceed, the entire inquiry ends.” (354 Conn. 57)
“In short, the trial court properly undertook a meaningful assessment of whether the Philippines was an adequate forum by weighing the parties’ competing affidavits—including Lim’s two affidavits and the Philippine law he cited—and ultimately finding that the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum.” (354 Conn. 60-61)
“As we stated, a defendant’s stipulation alone will not suffice to render an alternative forum adequate, and a trial court must meaningfully assess the parties’ submissions to decide the adequacy of the foreign jurisdiction.” (354 Conn. 65)
Factual background
Twenty-nine people died from carbon monoxide poisoning and asphyxiation in a December 23, 2017, fire at a four-story call center in Davao City, Philippines. The decedents worked for SSI Philippines, Inc., which provided services for Connecticut-based Dynata; two individual defendants were Dynata officers and SSI directors and shareholders. The defendants stipulated to Philippine jurisdiction, service, availability of personnel and records, waiver of applicable Philippine limitations defenses, satisfaction of any Philippine judgment, and reopening of the Connecticut action if specified conditions were not met. The parties submitted conflicting affidavits from Philippine law experts concerning whether the plaintiffs could proceed in the Philippines despite the statute of limitations.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs sued Dynata, LLC and two officers in Connecticut concerning a 2017 fire at a call center in Davao City, Philippines. The Superior Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, finding the Philippines to be an adequate alternative forum and conditionally permitting reinstatement in Connecticut if a Philippine court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Connecticut granted certification and affirmed the Appellate Court.