Opinion
Nos. 03-CV-6729-x, 03-CV-6730, 03-CV-6731.
August 19, 2004
MEMORANDUM
Presently pending in all of the above listed actions are Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand to which Defendant Raytheon, and Defendants Teledyne Continental Motors, Inc., Allegheny Technologies, Inc. ("ATI"), Louisville Forge Gear Works, LLC, and Hawker Pacofoc, Inc. have filed their opposition. Also pending are Defendants' Motions to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens and Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition thereto. A hearing on the pending motions was held on June 16, 2004. At the close of the hearing the Court granted Plaintiffs an additional month to conduct discovery on the limited issue of whether Defendant ATI was properly joined. On July 21, 2004, Plaintiff sent correspondence to the Court indicating that it had no further evidence to offer on the issue of Defendant ATI as a properly joined defendant. Therefore, the pending motions will be decided based upon the testimony presented at the hearings and parties' briefings. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand will be denied. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens will be denied.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiffs initially filed Complaints in these matters in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia in June 2003. Plaintiffs' Complaints contain counts for negligence, strict liability, wrongful death, and for survival actions stemming from a June 2001 plane crash in Indonesia. Plaintiffs filed amended Complaints in the Count of Common Pleas of Philadelphia on November 12, 2003. The Amended Complaints included joined Defendant ATI, alleging that ATI supplied the steel used to manufacture defective engine crankshafts. Plaintiff McCafferty, as the Administrator of the respective estates, is a resident of Pennsylvania.
I. MOTIONS TO REMAND
Defendants timely removed the actions to this Court and asserted that subject matter jurisdiction was predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendants assert that Allegheny (ATI), a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, was fraudulently joined as a defendant to defeat diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs presently move to remand these actions back to the Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, arguing that ATI was properly joined as a defendant.
Discussion
Remand is appropriate when it appears that a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Court concludes, however, that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant actions. The Third Circuit has held that joinder may be fraudulent where "there is no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendants or seek a joint judgment." Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990). In their First Amended Complaints, Plaintiffs aver that ATI supplied the steel used to manufacture defective engine crankshafts. (Amended Complaint, § 2, 19). In both their briefs and on oral argument at the hearing, Plaintiffs' conclude that because on the face of their respective Complaints, they make specific allegations against ATI, they have asserted viable causes of action against ATI. Plaintiffs also conclude that even if Defendants have provided the Court with conclusive evidence that ATI did not supply the engine crankshaft steel, this Court is not permitted to inquire into the merits of that claim when considering a motion to remand Plaintiffs' conclusions are erroneous.
Despite Plaintiffs' assertions to the contrary, the Court does not need to make a summary judgment type of ruling on the merits of Plaintiffs' claims against ATI. Some limited piercing of the Complaints is appropriate to determine whether Plaintiffs have asserted a colorable ground supporting their claims against ATI.See, Boyer, 913 F.2d at 112 (citing Smoot v. Chicago, Rock Island Pac. R.R. Co., 378 F.2d 879) (10th Cir. 1967) (where court found that non-diverse defendant had been fraudulently joined because he had uncontestedly discontinued his employment with the railroad over a year prior to the accident in question in that matter). There is no reasonable basis in fact to support Plaintiffs' claims against ATI. Defendant ATI has submitted the uncontested affidavit of Lauren S. McAndrews, Corporate Counsel for ATI, which states that, "ATI is not now, nor has it ever been, engaged in the business of manufacturing or selling steel, or any other products." (McAndrews Decl. at ¶ 3). At the hearing held on this matter, ATI's corporate representative testified that ATI is not and was not engaged in the business of manufacturing steel. Plaintiffs proffered no evidence to support its contention that ATI manufactured or sold steel. After an extended discovery period provided to permit Plaintiffs time to produce evidence that ATI manufactured or sold steel, Plaintiffs have been unable to provide the Court with any evidence that ATI is a properly joined defendant.
Although Plaintiffs urge the Court to look only to the face of their Complaints, after the hearing held on this matter and in full consideration of the arguments advanced in the parties' briefs, in a limited piercing of the Complaints it is clear to the Court that "resolving all contested issues of substantive fact in favor of the [plaintiffs,]" there is no basis for Plaintiffs' claims against ATI. See, Boyer, 913 F.2d at 111. Therefore, the Court concludes that Defendant ATI was fraudulently joined and ATI will be dismissed from these actions. Without ATI, the parties are completely diverse, vesting this Court with subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for remand will be denied.
II. MOTIONS TO DISMISS
In addition to the Plaintiffs' motions for remand, also pending are Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaints due to forum non conveniens. Defendants move on this ground maintaining dismissal is warranted because Pennsylvania has no interest in this litigation. Defendants further assert that Indonesia is a more convenient forum because: all of the potential beneficiaries of the estates are Indonesian residents; the accident occurred in Indonesia; the plane wreckage is located in Indonesia; all accident investigators are located in Indonesia; and the aircraft was owned by an Indonesian aviation academy.
A district court must analyze both the private and public interest when considering whether to dismiss a case for forum non conveniens. See, Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843. The private interests of the litigants to be considered includes: "the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive." Id.
The public interest factors to be considered include: the administrative difficulties for courts, including court congestion, when litigation is not handled at its origin; imposing jury duty upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation; holding a trial in the view of persons affected by the trial rather than where they can only learn of it by report; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; and, the appropriateness of trying a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court untangle problems in conflict of law, and in law foreign to itself. Id.
Having considered both the private and public interests relevant to the instant matter, the court concludes that dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens is not warranted under the circumstances. The private factors favoring holding trial in the United States are not outweighed by those favoring holding trial in Indonesia. Although Defendants point out that some of the connections to Indonesia include the site of the accident, the location of the beneficiaries of the estates, etc., the Court notes that the nature of Plaintiffs' claims primarily involve theories of liability based upon manufacturing and/or design defect of the aircraft or engine by Defendants. The bases of their claims are founded in American jurisprudence. These types of claims are the type of controversy regularly decided in federal courts of the United States. Moreover, Defendants direct the court to examine the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in Zipfel v. Halliburton, et al., 832 F.2d 1477 (9th Cir. 1987) in which that court concluded that the dismissal of the Indonesian seamen's claims for forum non conveniens was warranted. However, as the Zipfel Court noted, ". . . the operative facts on which liability and damages [were] premised occurred in Indonesia . . . [t]hese include the maintenacne and operation of the aircraft, . . . the chartering of the aircraft, . . . and the actions of the crew and the Indoensian air traffic controllers." Id. at 1480. Unlike the instant matters, in Zipfel the operative facts upon which liability was premised were based in Indonesia. Here, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants were involved in the manufacture and sale of the allegedly defective aircraft and defective engine. Plaintiffs' theory of liability is not premised on pilot or other human error. Consequently, the operative facts upon which liability is premised for the instant matters occured in the United States. Therefore, the Court concludes that the private interests favor litigating these cases in the United States as opposed to Indonesia.
Upon weighing the public interests to be considered in deciding a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, the court similarly concludes that there are no significant public interests favoring dismissal on this ground. Again federal courts are regularly called upon to decide the merits of cases relying on Plaintiffs' theory of liability. Plaintiffs' have appointed a local resident as the administrator of their respective estates. The factors concerning the public interests do not weigh in favor of dismissal for forum non conveniens.
CONCLUSION
The court concludes that trial of the instant matters in this forum does not imposes a heavy burden on the Defendants nor on the federal courts of the United States. Defendants' motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens will be denied.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of August 2004, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1. Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand is DENIED.
2. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for forum non conveniens is DENIED.