Opinion
1-20-1198
09-30-2021
CASEY GALLOWAY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County No. 20 L 2489 The Honorable Brendan O'Brien, Judge Presiding.
JUSTICE HOWSE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Lavin concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
HOWSE JUSTICE.
¶ 1 Held: Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens, we affirm.
¶ 2 Defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company appeals from an order denying its motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion and, accordingly, we affirm.
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 Plaintiff Casey Galloway is an employee of defendant Illinois Central Railroad Company. Galloway, a Louisiana resident, was injured during the course of his employment while he was working in Mississippi. Galloway was using a torch to cut a piece of rail that was being held by a crane when the crane operator moved the rail and it dropped on Galloway's foot. Galloway was a part of a traveling team of workers that Illinois Central dispatched to different states to perform track work.
¶ 5 Galloway filed a complaint against Illinois Central in federal court seeking damages for his injuries. Galloway filed the case in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, the state where he resides. Illinois Central moved to dismiss the federal case for lack of personal jurisdiction. The district court agreed that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Illinois Central and it dismissed the case. Plaintiff then filed this case in the circuit court of Cook County.
¶ 6 Illinois Central moved to dismiss this case on grounds of forum non conveniens. Illinois Central pointed out that plaintiff is a resident of Louisiana, that he was injured in Mississippi, and it argued that litigating the case in Cook County, Illinois would be inconvenient for the parties. Illinois Central suggests that this case should be dismissed in favor of Leflore County, Mississippi-the place where the injury occurred.
¶ 7 In response to the motion to dismiss, Galloway presented evidence that Illinois Central has its corporate headquarters and principal place of business in Cook County, Illinois. Galloway pointed out that the expected witnesses listed by the parties are located throughout the country and not concentrated in Mississippi. He urged the trial court to uphold his choice of forum and deny the motion to dismiss.
¶ 8 The trial court issued a 10-page written decision denying Illinois Central's motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. The trial court weighed the relevant interest factors and concluded that Illinois Central failed to demonstrate that the balance of factors "strongly favor" the case being tried in Leflore County, Mississippi. We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reaching that conclusion and, therefore, we affirm.
¶ 9 ANALYSIS
¶ 10 On appeal, Illinois Central argues that the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to decline to exercise jurisdiction over a case, even though it may have proper jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties "if it appears that another forum can better serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice." Fennell v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 12. The doctrine is founded on considerations of fundamental fairness and sensible and effective judicial administration. Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 217 Ill.2d 158, 169 (2005).
¶ 11 In determining whether a case should be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens, courts must balance certain public and private interest factors. Id. at 169-70. The court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances in the case to determine whether the balance of factors "strongly favors dismissal." Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, at ¶ 17.
¶ 12 The relevant public interest factors include: the administrative difficulties caused when litigation is handled in congested venues; the unfairness of imposing jury duty upon residents of a community with no connection to the litigation; and the interest in having local controversies decided locally. First American Bank v. Guerine, 198 Ill.2d 511, 516-17 (2002). The relevant private interest factors include: the convenience of the parties; the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence; the availability of compulsory process to secure attendance of unwilling witnesses; the cost to obtain attendance of willing witnesses; the possibility of viewing the premises, and, if appropriate, all other practical considerations that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Id.
¶ 13 A court is not to weigh the private interest factors against the public interest factors nor is it to emphasize any one factor. Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 219 Ill.2d 430, 444 (2006). Rather, the court must consider all relevant factors and evaluate the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the balance of factors strongly favors transfer. Id. at 442. A trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. Each forum non conveniens case must be decided on its own considerations of convenience and fairness. Schuster v. Richards, 2018 IL App (1st) 171558, ¶ 49.
¶ 14 Illinois Central argues that the trial court abused its discretion in three ways. First, it argues that the trial court afforded inappropriate deference to Galloway's choice of forum. Second, it argues that the trial court inappropriately denied the motion to dismiss despite the case having little connection to Cook County. Third, it argues that the trial court afforded inappropriate weight to the fact that Illinois Central has its headquarters and a major training facility in Cook County.
¶ 15 As to its first claim of error, Illinois Central correctly points out that before weighing the private and public interest factors that are relevant to a forum non conveniens analysis, the court must determine how much weight to attach to the plaintiff's choice of forum. Under a typical forum non conveniens analysis, a plaintiff's right to select the forum is substantial and should rarely be disturbed. Fennell, 2012 IL 113802, at ¶ 18. However, the plaintiff's choice of forum is not entitled to the same weight or deference in all cases. Dawdy v. Union Pacific Railroad, 207 Ill.2d 167, 173 (2003). When a plaintiff chooses the site of the accident or injury or its home forum, it is reasonable to assume that the choice of forum is convenient. Id. However, when the plaintiff is foreign to the chosen forum and when the action giving rise to the litigation did not occur there, the plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded less deference. Id. at 173-74.
¶ 16 In this case, the trial court gave Galloway's choice of Cook County additional deference because Illinois Central succeeded in dismissing the case Galloway filed in his home forum. We agree with Illinois Central that additional deference should not be given to Galloway's choice of forum just because the case he filed in his home forum was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Illinois Central should not in essence be penalized for successfully moving to dismiss a case where the court agreed that Galloway sued Illinois Central in a place where it was not amenable to jurisdiction. Illinois Central merely exercised its constitutional right not to be forced to litigate in a court that lacked personal jurisdiction over it. Because Cook County was not the site of the injury nor is it Galloway's home forum, his choice of forum is entitled to no additional deference in a forum non conveniens analysis. Galloway is entitled to the general deference given to a plaintiff's choice of forum, but not any additional deference under such circumstances as our courts have previously described.
¶ 17 Moving to Illinois Central's second and third claims of error, we must consider the circumstances of the case alongside the public and private interest factors. Illinois Central's second claim of error is that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens where Galloway did not show any meaningful connection between this case and Illinois other than Illinois Central's operations here. It contends that Galloway did not identify any witness that resides in Illinois and that he and the trial court relied on speculation to establish a connection between the case and Cook County. Illinois Central's third claim of error is that the trial court gave undue weight to its business operations in Cook County.
¶ 18 As to the private interest factors, Illinois Central presented evidence in the form of an affidavit to show that bringing its employee-witnesses to Cook County would be inconvenient. Illinois Central cites the travel time, travel cost, and the interruption of its business operations as circumstances to consider. Illinois Central also highlights that none of the specifically identified witnesses in the case reside in Illinois and that more of them are located nearer to the suggested alternative forum in Mississippi than they are to Cook County. Illinois Central points out that the medical providers are located in Mississippi or Louisiana. It also contends that the lack of compulsory process in Illinois and the possibility of a jury viewing the site of the injury weigh in favor of Leflore County, Mississippi.
¶ 19 As to the public interest factors, Illinois Central reiterates that the case has little to no connection to Cook County. Illinois Central contends that a Mississippi court and a Mississippi jury have an interest in the case since the injury occurred there. Illinois Central maintains that it would be unfair to burden Illinois citizens and Illinois courts with a case in which a nonresident plaintiff was injured in another state.
¶ 20 To show an entitlement to a dismissal based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a defendant must do more than show that the plaintiff's choice of forum is inconvenient to it. Guerine, 198 Ill.2d at 515. The defendant must show that the specific alternative forum is strongly favored over the forum the plaintiff has chosen. Griffith v. Mitsubishi Aircraft International, Inc., 136 Ill.2d 101, 108 (1990) ("The test, then, is whether the relevant factors, viewed in their totality, strongly favor transfer to the forum suggested by defendant."). We know that jurisdiction and venue exist in Cook County, so the only question is whether the interest factors strongly show that Leflore County, Mississippi is a significantly more appropriate forum for this case, and whether the trial court's decision to the contrary rises to the level of an abuse of its discretion.
¶ 21 Here, the record shows that the witnesses are scattered across the country. There are identified witnesses in Mississippi, Louisiana, Indiana, Tennessee, and North Carolina. There are other possible witnesses that the parties have discussed that reside elsewhere, including in Illinois. See Erwin ex rel. Erwin v. Motorola, Inc., 408 Ill.App.3d 261, 280 (2011) (where witnesses are scattered across the country, one particular forum is generally not considered to be substantially more convenient than another). All but two identified witnesses are going to have significant, hours-long travel whether the case is in Cook County or Leflore County, Mississippi. Only one or two witnesses would avoid air travel if the case was transferred to Mississippi. The plaintiff will have to travel to a non-residential state regardless of which forum is approved. While Illinois Central downplays its importance, the fact that it has its headquarters and principal place of business in Cook County weighs against a transfer. See Johnson v. Nash, 2019 IL App (1st) 180840, ¶ 44. While not impossible, a defendant faces an uphill battle when it argues that its home forum is an inconvenient place for it to litigate. See id.
¶ 22 In opposition to the motion to dismiss, Galloway attached evidence in the form of an affidavit that Illinois Central filed in another case in 2010 in which it argued to a Mississippi court that Mississippi was an inconvenient place for it to litigate. Illinois Central requested that the case be moved from Mississippi to Illinois as Illinois was the most convenient place for the litigation, averring that its most senior risk management, human resources, labor relations, and legal personnel are all located in Cook County, Illinois. Illinois Central went on to aver in that case that "Cook County, Illinois is the nerve center for Illinois Central operations." While we frequently look at the motives of a plaintiff related to forum shopping, we must likewise be cognizant that defendants can invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens to engage in forum shopping as well.
¶ 23 The fact that Illinois Central is headquartered and has its principal place of business in Cook County gives Illinois courts and Illinois citizens some interest in the dispute. Illinois Central pays taxes here and litigates in Illinois on a regular basis. Illinois residents have an interest in Illinois Central's safe operations as it conducts a large percentage of its overall business here. One claim in this case, and perhaps other claims tangentially, relates to inadequate training provided by Illinois Central, which is unrelated to the situs of the injury and speaks more to Illinois Central's overall operations as a company. The inadequate training claim relates back to the "nerve center" that Illinois Central described in an affidavit where its high-ranking staff in risk management, labor relations, and legal personnel reside. There is a dispute as to whether the crane operator who was involved in the incident in which Galloway was injured received some training in Illinois, but the ultimate veracity of the allegation is not outcome determinative.
¶ 24 According to Illinois Central's own calculation, there are 14 identified witnesses that reside in Louisiana, 4 that reside in Mississippi, 2 that reside in Tennessee, 1 that resides in North Carolina, and 1 that resides in Indiana. Illinois Central's argument is based significantly on the fact that none of the yet-identified witnesses reside in Illinois, but it faced a difficult task of convincing the trial court that a forum in Mississippi is by far the most appropriate forum for this case when only 4 of the 21 identified witnesses reside there. See Erwin, 408 Ill.App.3d at 280. It is Illinois Central's burden to show that the alternative forum is strongly favored; simply showing that plaintiff's chosen forum has some drawbacks is not enough.
¶ 25 The parties each thoroughly examine and dispute the impact that our decision in Hansen-Runge v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 2020 IL App (1st) 190383 has on this case. In that case, we held that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied the defendant's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. In Hansen-Runge, the "overwhelming majority" of witnesses resided in Black Hawk County, Iowa and all the other connections between the parties and the case, other than the defendant's place of business, were to Black Hawk County, Iowa. We noted that the plaintiff therein never alleged that Illinois was defendant's headquarters. Id. at ¶ 19.
¶ 26 In contrast, in this case, some of the connections are to Louisiana, some are to Mississippi, some are to Illinois, and there are witnesses scattered among other states. In addition, in Hansen-Runge, the defendant sought to transfer the case to the plaintiff's home forum. Here, Illinois Central seeks a transfer to a completely different state from Galloway's state of residence. Illinois Central sent Galloway and his team members to different states to perform work. Now Illinois Central seeks to impose upon its employee to litigate in the place that it sent him, rather than his chosen forum. Where so many other considerations favored Black Hawk County in Hansen-Runge, the defendant was able to overcome the fact that its principal place of business was in Cook County. The circumstances for transfer in Hansen-Runge were significantly more compelling than the circumstances presented here.
¶ 27 On balance, we do not see that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens where there was ample evidence and reasonable legal and factual grounds to support the court's conclusion. See Griffith, 136 Ill.2d at 115. The trial court, in a 10-page written order, demonstrated that it considered and weighed all the relevant public and private interest factors in reaching its conclusion. The trial court conducted a rational balancing of the interest factors at issue and the overall circumstances of the case to conclude that Illinois Central failed to demonstrate that Leflore County, Mississippi was strongly favored as the appropriate forum for this case. The trial court's decision was not such that no reasonable trial judge could reach that decision and it was not arbitrary, fanciful, or contrary to law. Elling v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co., 291 Ill.App.3d 311, 317-18 (1997) (in a forum non conveniens context, a reviewing court "is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court or even to determine whether the trial court exercised its discretion wisely, but rather to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion.").
¶ 28 Illinois Central argues that the trial court relied on speculation and on facts refuted by the record to reach its conclusion. In connection with this argument, Illinois Central highlights that Galloway did not avail himself of additional discovery under the Supreme Court Rules in order to further explore the case's connection to the forum (see Ill. S.Ct. R. 187(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2018) (West 2020). We find this argument to be unpersuasive as Galloway had sufficient record evidence to argue against dismissal, and Illinois Central has failed to show that the trial court abused its discretion by either misconstruing facts or relying on speculation.
¶ 29 Our supreme court has repeatedly instructed that dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens is an act that should be done" only in exceptional circumstances when the interests of justice require a trial in a more convenient forum." Langenhorst, 219 Ill.2d at 442 (emphasis in original). We do not find this case to present such an exceptional circumstance and we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Illinois Central's motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens.
¶ 30 CONCLUSION
¶ 31 Accordingly, we affirm.
¶ 32 Affirmed.