Summary
applying de novo review where, as here, petitioners asked this Court to decide whether the trial court "erroneously based its decision on the Abbott case"
Summary of this case from State ex rel. Am. Elec. Power Co. v. NibertOpinion
No. 14–0766.
04-09-2015
STATE of West Virginia ex rel. FORD MOTOR COMPANY; Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., a West Virginia Corporation; and Does 1–50 Inclusive, Petitioners v. The Honorable David W. NIBERT, Judge of the Circuit Court of Roane County; and Christie Siegel, individually and as Successor–In–Interest to the Estate of Jordan Siegel and Ashley Siegel, deceased; Marc Siegel, individually and as Successor–In–Interest to the Estate of Jordan Siegel and Ashley Siegel, deceased; Dawn Siegel, an individual; Erica Fox, an individual; Christopher Fox, an individual; Brooklyn Siegel, by and through her Guardian Marc Siegel; and Madison Owens, by and through her Guardian, Dawn Siegel, Respondents.
Gregory G. Garre, Esq., Michael E. Bern, Esq., Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C., Michael Bonasso, Esq., William Hanna, Esq., Bradley J. Schmalzer, Esq., Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Petitioners. T. Keith Gould, Esq., The Miley Legal Group, Clarksburg, WV, for Respondents.
Gregory G. Garre, Esq., Michael E. Bern, Esq., Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, D.C., Michael Bonasso, Esq., William Hanna, Esq., Bradley J. Schmalzer, Esq., Flaherty Sensabaugh Bonasso, PLLC, Charleston, WV, for Petitioners.
T. Keith Gould, Esq., The Miley Legal Group, Clarksburg, WV, for Respondents.
Opinion
WORKMAN, Chief Justice:This original jurisdiction action is before the Court upon a petition for writ of prohibition brought by Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) and Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., (both entities referred to collectively as “the Petitioners”) seeking to prohibit the Honorable David W. Nibert, Judge of the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia, from taking any further action in the case below and from denying the Petitioners' motion to dismiss the case based upon forum non conveniens. Having considered the parties' briefs and arguments and the appendix record, we find that the circuit court failed to make findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a (2012). Therefore, the Court grants the writ as moulded and remands the case for further action consistent with this opinion.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
According to the allegations in the Complaint, in 1999, Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., sold a 1999 model Ford Expedition to an unidentified individual from the dealership located in Spencer, West Virginia. The vehicle was designed by Ford in Dearborn, Michigan, and manufactured by Ford in Wayne, Michigan. Moreover, Ford has its principal place of business in Michigan. In 2006, years after the initial sale, the Expedition was sold to a Michigan resident not identified in the litigation. Approximately two years later, in 2008, the vehicle again was sold in the State of Michigan by a Michigan resident to the Respondents, who were the plaintiffs below and also Michigan residents.
It is significant that Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., has consented to jurisdiction in Michigan.
For purposes of this opinion, the Respondents do not include the circuit judge named in this action before the Court.
The Respondents include Christie Siegel, individually and as successor-in-interest to the estate of Jordan Siegel and Ashley Siegel, deceased; Marc Siegel, individually and as successor-in-interest to the estate of Jordan Siegel and Ashley Siegel, deceased; Dawn Siegel, an individual, Erica Fox, an individual, Christopher Fox, an individual; Brooklyn Siegel, by and through her guardian Marc Siegel; and Madison Owens, by and through her guardian, Dawn Siegel.
On June 22, 2012, an accident occurred in which the subject Expedition, which was being operated by the Respondent Dawn Siegel, rolled-over multiple times after swerving to avoid hitting a Honda Odyssey that had made contact with the Expedition. The operator of the Honda Odyssey fled the scene in the vehicle. Neither the Honda Odyssey, nor its driver, were located until days later. At the time of the accident, Mrs. Siegel and her six children and step-children were in the Expedition. Two children were killed in the accident. The other family members suffered serious injuries to heads, arms and legs, as well as significant bruising.
On February 12, 2014, the Respondents filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Roane County, West Virginia, asserting claims against Ford, Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., Kristin Kae Boss, the Ohio driver of the Honda Odyssey that struck the Respondents' car, and Prestige Delivery Systems (“Prestige”), Ms. Boss's employer. In the Complaint, the Respondents allege various torts against Ford and/or Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., including strict products liability based upon manufacturing and design defects in the Expedition.
Ford, Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., and Prestige jointly moved to dismiss the civil action based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens as set forth in West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a. The Petitioners, analyzing each of the eight factors set forth in the statute, argued that Michigan was the correct forum for the litigation and that West Virginia had “little to no nexus to the subject matter in controversy in this case.”
The Respondents then bifurcated their claims by filing a separate complaint against Prestige and Ms. Boss in the State of Ohio, while maintaining this action against Ford and Jack Garrett Ford, Inc., in West Virginia. The Respondents voluntarily dismissed Prestige and Ms. Boss from the instant action.
The parties have informed the Court that since the Respondents' filing of a complaint against Prestige and Ms. Boss in Ohio, the lower court granted Prestige's and Ms. Boss's motion to dismiss that action based upon forum non conveniens. See Christie Siegel, et al. v. Kristin Kae Boss, et al., Case No. CV–14–826326 (Ct.Com.Pl. Cuyahoga Cnty. Aug. 21, 2014). The Respondents are appealing that dismissal in Ohio.
On May 2, 2014, the Respondents filed their opposition to the Petitioners' motion to dismiss, relying upon syllabus point two of Abbott v. Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp., 191 W.Va. 198, 444 S.E.2d 285 (1994), which provides:
“The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens is available to courts of record in this State. The doctrine accords a preference to the plaintiff's choice of forum, but the defendant may overcome this preference by demonstrating that the forum has only a slight nexus to the subject matter of the suit and that another available forum exists which would enable the case to be tried substantially more inexpensively and expeditiously. To the extent that Gardner v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., [179] W.Va. [724], 372 S.E.2d 786 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1016, 109 S.Ct. 1132, 103 L.Ed.2d 193 (1989), declined to apply this doctrine, it is overruled.” Syl. pt. 3, Norfolk and Western Ry. Co. v. Tsapis, 184 W.Va. 231, 400 S.E.2d 239 (1990).
(Some emphasis added). Based upon the foregoing language in Abbott, the Respondents maintained that “the West Virginia Supreme Court has required a moving party to offer specific evidence that another forum is substantially more convenient and inexpensive.” Further, relying upon the holding in Abbott that “[i]n order for this Court to review a trial court's decision regarding the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, it is necessary for the trial court to provide a record in sufficient detail which will show the basis of its decision[,]” 191 W.Va. at 204, 444 S.E.2d at 291, the Respondents argued that the Petitioners offered “[m]ere allegations and conclusions,” as support for their motion and failed to support it with any evidence.
The circuit court conducted a hearing on the Petitioners' motion on May 8, 2014. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court requested that the parties submit proposed orders. On July 3, 2014, the circuit court entered the Respondents' proposed order denying the Petitioners' motion to dismiss. Specifically, the circuit court found “the reasoning of Abbott persuasive” and “controlling.” Thus, applying the law enunciated in Abbott, the court determined that the Petitioners not only “failed to provide any substantive evidence that West Virginia was substantially more inconvenient and expensive than the alternate forum[,]” but also “merely relied on conclusory allegations in their pleading.” The circuit court further found that the Petitioners failed: 1) “to identify a single witness who believed West Virginia is unfairly burdensome or a witness who refuses to appear in West Virginia[;]” 2) to show that they were “substantially limited in their ability to present evidence or witnesses” in West Virginia; 3) “to identify any additional legal expenses incurred by litigating this case in West Virginia [;]” and 4) to “provide any evidence supporting the arguments that this case would burden West Virginia courts.” The circuit court also found that
with respect to remedies available in Michigan, this Court is mindful that Michigan enforces a statute of repose. Michigan's statute of repose requires a plaintiff to prove their case without the benefit of presumptions, like strict liability, if the product has been in use longer than 10 years. The subject vehicle is a 1999 Ford Expedition so Michigan's statute of repose would apply. While not necessarily determinative, Michigan's statute of repose is inconsistent with the principles underlying West Virginia's doctrine of strict products liability, which is critical in protecting West Virginia consumers.
Lastly, the circuit court summarily stated in its order that “in evaluating the factors described in § 56–1–1a, this Court finds that Plaintiffs choice of forum in West Virginia is appropriate as well.” There was no specific evaluation of the eight enumerated factors set forth in West Virginia § 56–1–1a.
II. Standard of Review
This Court has consistently held that “ ‘[p]rohibition will lie to prohibit a judge from exceeding his legitimate powers.’ Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. Winter v. MacQueen, 161 W.Va. 30, 239 S.E.2d 660 (1977).” Syl. Pt. 1, State ex rel. Mylan, Inc. v. Zakaib, 227 W.Va. 641, 713 S.E.2d 356 (2011). In Mylan, in discussing the standard of review applicable to venue disputes, we stated that
[i]n the context of disputes over venue, such as dismissal for forum non conveniens, this Court has previously held that a writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy “to resolve the issue of where venue for a civil action lies,” because “the issue of venue [has] the potential of placing a litigant at an unwarranted disadvantage in a pending action and [ ] relief by appeal would be inadequate.” State ex rel. Huffman v. Stephens, 206 W.Va. 501, 503, 526 S.E.2d 23, 25 (1999) ; see also State ex rel. Riffle v. Ranson, 195 W.Va. 121, 124, 464 S.E.2d 763, 766 (1995) (“In recent times in every case that has had a substantial legal issue regarding venue, we have recognized the importance of resolving the issue in an original action.”).
This Court typically reviews a circuit court's decision on venue, including forum non conveniens, under an abuse of discretion standard. See Syl. Pt. 3, Cannelton Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. of Am., 194 W.Va. 186, 460 S.E.2d 1 (1994) (“A circuit court's decision to invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens will not be reversed unless it is found that the circuit court abused its discretion.”); Nezan v. Aries Techs., Inc., 226 W.Va. 631, 637, 704 S.E.2d 631, 637 (2010) (“On the issue of forum non conveniens, we have held that the standard of review of this Court is an abuse of discretion.”). The Mylan Petitioners, however, contend that this Court's review should be de novo because the circuit judges misapplied and/or misinterpreted the controlling statute. In Riffle, this Court explained:
The normal deference accorded to a circuit court's decision to transfer a case, Syl. pt. 3,
Cannelton Industries, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 194 W.Va. 186, 460 S.E.2d 1 (1994) (“[a] circuit court's decision to invoke the doctrine of forum non conveniens will not be reversed unless it is found that the circuit court abused its discretion”), does not apply where the law is misapplied or where the decision to transfer hinges on an interpretation of a controlling statute. See Mildred L.M. v. John O.F., 192 W.Va. 345, 350, 452 S.E.2d 436, 441 (1994) (“[t]his Court reviews questions of statutory interpretation de novo. ”). Under these circumstances, our review is plenary.
Mylan, 227 W.Va. at 645, 713 S.E.2d at 360–61. In the instant matter, because the Petitioners ask this Court to decide whether the circuit court erroneously based its decision on the Abbott case, rather than the forum non conveniens statute, West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a, our review is de novo. See Syl. Pt. 1, Chrystal R.M. v. Charlie A.L., 194 W.Va. 138, 459 S.E.2d 415 (1995) (“Where the issue on an appeal from the circuit court is clearly a question of law or involving an interpretation of a statute, we apply a de novo standard of review.”).
III. Discussion
The issue before the Court is whether the circuit court failed to consider the statutory factors set forth in West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a in determining whether to dismiss the case for forum non conveniens. The Petitioners maintain that the circuit court failed to heed this Court's precedent requiring it to consider all the statutory forum non conveniens factors, misapplied the factors it did consider, and overlooked the fact that this case lacks any meaningful connection to West Virginia. Conversely, the Respondents maintain that “[b]ecause the Circuit Court considered and applied all of the W. Va.Code § 56–1–1a factors as required by State ex rel. Mylan v. Zakaib, 227 W.Va. 641, 713 S.E.2d 356 (2011) [,] it did not exceed its authority....”
At the heart of this case is West Virginia's forum non conveniens statute, West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a, which provides:
(a) In any civil action if a court of this state, upon a timely written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and shall stay or dismiss the claim or action, or dismiss any plaintiff: Provided, That the plaintiff's choice of a forum is entitled to great deference, but this preference may be diminished when the plaintiff is a nonresident and the cause of action did not arise in this State. In determining whether to grant a motion to stay or dismiss an action, or dismiss any plaintiff under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court shall consider:
(1) Whether an alternate forum exists in which the claim or action may be tried;
(2) Whether maintenance of the claim or action in the courts of this State would work a substantial injustice to the moving party;
(3) Whether the alternate forum, as a result of the submission of the parties or otherwise, can exercise jurisdiction over all the defendants properly joined to the plaintiff's claim;
(4) The state in which the plaintiff(s) reside;
(5) The state in which the cause of action accrued;
(6) Whether the balance of the private interests of the parties and the public interest of the State predominate in favor of the claim or action being brought in an alternate forum, which shall include consideration of the extent to which an injury or death resulted from acts or omissions that occurred in this State. Factors relevant to the private interests of the parties include, but are not limited to, the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses; the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses; possibility of a view of the premises, if a view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. Factors relevant to the public interest of the State include, but are not
limited to, the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the interest in having localized controversies decided within the State; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty;
(7) Whether not granting the stay or dismissal would result in unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation; and
(8) Whether the alternate forum provides a remedy.
....
(e) A court that grants a motion to stay or dismiss an action pursuant to this section shall set forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(Emphasis added).
This Court has previously examined the effect that the foregoing statute has on all cases involving the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In syllabus points five and six of Mylan, we held that:
By using the term “shall,” the Legislature has mandated that courts must consider the eight factors enumerated in West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a (Supp.2010), as a means of determining whether, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, a claim or action should be stayed or dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens.
In all decisions on motions made pursuant to West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a (Supp.2010), courts must state findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each of the eight factors listed for consideration under subsection (a) of that statute.
227 W.Va. at 643, 713 S.E.2d at 358, Syl. Pt. 6 (emphasis added).
While the circuit court mentions West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a in its order, it specifically finds that Abbott is still controlling. Further, the circuit court fails to state “findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the eight factors” listed in the statute, despite both the Legislature and this Court mandating that such findings of fact and conclusions of law be expressly made when determining whether forum non conveniens is applicable. See id. , 227 W.Va. at 642–43, 713 S.E.2d at 357–58. Rather, what is gleaned from our examination of the circuit court's order is that it solely relied upon this Court's decision in Abbott, which predated both West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a and this Court's decision in Mylan.
Given the circuit court's failure to properly evaluate the Petitioners' motion to dismiss in a manner that comports with West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a, upon remand, the circuit court should re-evaluate forum non conveniens in the manner set forth in the statute, as well as in this Court's decisions in Mace v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 227 W.Va. 666, 714 S.E.2d 223 (2011), and Mylan. For example, regarding the first statutory factor concerning whether an alternate forum exists, this Court held in syllabus points eight and nine of Mace that:
Under West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a (Supp.2010), dismissal of a claim or action on the basis of forum non conveniens presupposes at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to process; the statute furnishes criteria for choice between them. In the event that the defendant is not amenable to process in any alternate forum, dismissal of a claim or action under this statute would constitute error.
In considering “whether an alternate forum exists in which the claim or action may be tried” pursuant to West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a(a)(1) (Supp.2010), an alternate forum is presumed to “exist” where the defendant is amenable to process. Such presumption may be defeated, however, if the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all. In such cases, the alternate forum ceases to “exist” for purposes of forum non conveniens, and dismissal in favor of that forum would constitute error.
227 W.Va. at 668, 714 S.E.2d at 225. In the instant matter, the circuit court failed to mention, discuss or apply the law enunciated by this Court in Mace in its determination of whether an alternative forum existed.
Further, in the instant matter, the circuit court determined that “Michigan enforces a statute of repose.” It is incumbent upon us to point out that the circuit court made this determination without any supporting legal authority to do so. In fact, according to the appendix record, the applicable Michigan statute upon which the circuit court relies is Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated § 600.5805(13) (LexisNexis 2004 & Supp. 2014), which provides: “The period of limitations is 3 years for a products liability action. However in the case of a product that has been in use for not less than 10 years, the plaintiff, in proving a prima facie case, shall be required to do so without benefit of any presumption.” This is not a statute of repose, but a statute of limitations. As the Michigan Court of Appeals stated in Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance Co. v. Marlette Homes, Inc., 456 Mich. 511, 573 N.W.2d 611 (1998), when presented with Michigan's statute of repose,
Michigan's statute of repose, Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated § 600.5839(1) (LexisNexis Supp. 2014), provides as follows:
(1) A person shall not maintain an action to recover damages for injury to property, real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, or an action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained as a result of such injury, against any state licensed architect or professional engineer performing or furnishing the design or supervision of construction of the improvement, or against any contractor making the improvement, unless the action is commenced within either of the following periods:
(a) Six years after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement, use, or acceptance of the improvement.
(b) If the defect constitutes the proximate cause of the injury or damage for which the action is brought and is the result of gross negligence on the part of the contractor or licensed architect or professional engineer, 1 year after the defect is discovered or should have been discovered. However, an action to which this subdivision applies shall not be maintained more than 10 years after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement, use, or acceptance of the improvement.
(2) A person shall not maintain an action to recover damages based on error or negligence of a licensed professional surveyor in the preparation of a survey or report more than 6 years after the survey or report is recorded or is delivered to the person for whom it was made or the person's agent.
(Emphasis added).
[t]he Court of Appeals explained how such a measure [referring to Michigan's statute of repose] differs from a statute of limitation:
A statute of repose limits the liability of a party by setting a fixed time after the sale or first use of an item beyond which the party will not be held liable for defects in it or injury or damage arising from it. Unlike a statute of limitations, a statute of repose may bar a claim before an injury or damage occurs. O'Brien v. Hazlet [Hazelet ] & Erdal, 410 Mich. 1, 15, 299 N.W.2d 336 (1980) ; Oole v. Oosting, 82 Mich.App. 291, 298–300, 266 N.W.2d 795 (1978).
573 N.W.2d at 612 n. 3.
Upon remand, when giving due consideration of West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a(a)(1) and (8), regarding whether a remedy exists in Michigan, we direct the circuit court's
The Respondents argue that the Michigan statute is a statute of repose and that because of the Michigan statute “the substantive difference between the States is so great that Michigan law would abrogate Plaintiffs' strict liability in tort case.” To support their argument, the Respondents ask this Court to adopt the reasoning of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in Gantes v. Kason Corp., 145 N.J. 478, 679 A.2d 106 (1996), wherein the representatives of decedent's estate filed a complaint alleging, inter alia, strict liability in New Jersey, where the manufacturer of a piece of machinery was located. The accident causing the decedent's death occurred in Georgia. The action was filed in New Jersey was because Georgia had a statute of repose that would have barred the action, while New Jersey had a statute of limitations that would allow the action to go forward. The primary issue before the New Jersey court centered upon choice of laws and the New Jersey court ultimately determined that it would apply its statute of limitations, which allowed the case to proceed. On the issue of forum non conveniens, the court found that the issue was not properly before it; however, it also noted that “dismissal pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot occur if the transfer will result in significant hardship to the plaintiffs.” Id. at 499, 679 A.2d 106. In Gantes, the New Jersey court found that “without doubt, a dismissal of this action will cause severe hardship to plaintiff. If this action cannot proceed in New Jersey, plaintiff will be left with no forum in which to proceed and will be denied recovery altogether.” Id.
Such is not the case in the instant matter before the Court. Unlike the Gantes decision, Michigan's law does not act as a bar to the Respondents' action in Michigan. It only eliminates a presumption because more than ten years has passed. Accordingly, we decline to adopt the law enunciated by the New Jersey court in Gantes.
attention to the Mylan decision, wherein we stated:
[T]he Supreme Court in Piper Aircraft [Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981) ] acknowledged that, in rare instances, a change in substantive law in an alternate forum may be so significant that it would, in effect, eliminate the plaintiff's chance of recovery in the case. In such instances, the law of the alternate forum cannot be ignored. Thus, the United States Supreme Court stated that “if the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all, the unfavorable change in law may be given substantial weight....” Id. at 254, 102 S.Ct. 252. Importantly, however, the facts of Piper Aircraft made clear that the remedy offered by an alternate forum is not rendered inadequate simply because that forum does not recognize one of several claims asserted by a plaintiff. Id. at 255, 102 S.Ct. 252 (“Although the relatives of the decedents may not be able to rely on a strict liability theory, and although their potential damages award may be smaller, there is no danger that they will be deprived of any remedy or treated unfairly.”)
Mylan, 227 W.Va. at 647 n. 5, 713 S.E.2d at 362 n. 5 (quoting, in part, Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 254–55, 102 S.Ct. 252 ). In the instant action, the circuit court found that “[w]hile not necessarily determinative, Michigan's statute of repose is inconsistent with the principles underlying West Virginia's doctrine of strict products liability.” Being “inconsistent with principles” of West Virginia law, however, is not enough under our law. Rather, the circuit court must examine whether the remedy under Michigan law “is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all.” Mace, 227 W.Va. at 668, 714 S.E.2d at 225, at Syl. Pt. 9, in part.
IV. Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, this Court issues the requested writ as moulded. The action is remanded for further consideration of the Petitioners' motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. On remand, the circuit court is instructed to consider the law enunciated by this Court in Mace and Mylan and to set forth clear findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each of the eight factors listed in West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a whether the circuit court ultimately grants or denies the motion to dismiss.
Writ granted as moulded.
Justice BENJAMIN and Justice LOUGHRY dissent and reserve the right to file separate opinions.
Justice KETCHUM concurs and reserves the right to file a separate opinion.
Justice KETCHUM, concurring:
I agree that this case should be remanded for the trial judge to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by West Virginia Code § 56–1–1(e).
My reading of the record, West Virginia Code § 56–1–1, and our case law lead me to believe, without any doubt, that the proper forum is Michigan. Nevertheless, the trial judge may have seen something I missed and should be allowed to make specific findings and conclusions before this Court rules.
LOUGHRY, Justice, dissenting:
By its adoption of a hyper-technical approach that clearly elevates form over substance, the majority compounded the error committed by the circuit court's denial of the respondents' motion for dismissal. Not only did our Legislature recognize with its statutory enactment of West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a (2012) that certain cases dictate dismissal on grounds of convenience to the parties and the interests of justice, but they made clear that when the plaintiff is a non-resident and the cause of action accrued outside this state, the plaintiff's right to choose his or her forum is clearly subject to closer scrutiny and less significance in terms of preference.
While observing that a “plaintiff's choice of a forum is entitled to great deference,” the Legislature clarified that “this preference may be diminished when the plaintiff is a nonresident and the cause of action did not arise in this State.” W.Va.Code § 56–1–1a(a).
The record of this case, as already developed, presents the paradigm of a case that unquestionably demands dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent from the majority's decision to remand this matter back to the trial court for further findings that are not required to resolve the limited issue before the Court.
Significantly, this case involves out-of-state plaintiffs who were involved in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in 2012 in the state of Michigan. The vehicle in which the non-resident plaintiffs were occupying at the time of the accident was a 1999 Ford Expedition. By the time the plaintiffs purchased that car in 2008 in the state of Michigan, it had been owned by multiple individuals. The person who sold the car to the plaintiffs was a Michigan resident. The vehicle was designed and constructed in Michigan. The first responders and the medical professionals who treated the occupants of the Ford Expedition were all located in Michigan. The accident witnesses and investigators were similarly located in Michigan. When the vehicle was originally sold in 1999, thirteen years before the accident's occurrence, it was sold by a West Virginia car dealership. That minor and seemingly insignificant event is the singular fact upon which the plaintiffs rely to assert that this state is the proper forum in which to try their cause of action.
Oddly, the majority omitted to disclose the out-of-state location of the accident.
The plaintiffs' vehicle was struck by a Honda Odyssey, driven by an Ohio resident. All of the passengers in the Ford Expedition were Michigan residents.
The record suggests the plaintiffs were at least the fourth owner of this vehicle.
According to the respondents, West Virginia is a more desirable forum for the plaintiffs because of a difference in our laws. Under Michigan law, if a product has been in use for more than ten years, the plaintiff must prove his or her case without the benefit of presumptions, such as strict liability. This state has no comparable limitation.
As the basis for its remand to require specific findings of fact on each of the eight statutory factors provided in West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a, the majority faults the trial court for failing to comply with the statute, as well as this Court's holdings in State ex rel. Mylan, Inc. v. Zakaib, 227 W.Va. 641, 713 S.E.2d 356 (2011), and in Mace v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 227 W.Va. 666, 714 S.E.2d 223 (2011). In its rush to castigate the trial court, the majority claims that the trial court “solely relied upon this Court's decision in Abbott. ” While the trial court clearly relied in part on Abbott, the order from which the subject appeal is taken specifically provides: “Further, in evaluating the factors described in § 56–1–1a, this Court finds that Plaintiffs [sic] choice of forum in West Virginia is appropriate as well.” For its analytical purposes, the majority simply chose not to divulge the circuit court's express reference to having considered the very statutory factors which the Court faults it for ignoring.
See Abbott v. Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp., 191 W.Va. 198, 444 S.E.2d 285 (1994).
During the oral argument of this case, the plaintiffs' attorney acknowledged that the trial court had considered the statutory factors set forth in West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a.
In reviewingZakaib, I discerned a statutory distinction that the Court either overlooked or ignored in crafting syllabus point six of that decision, which requires findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the factors provided in West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a. The Court, with little consideration of the actual statutory language, simply declared in Zakaib that the Legislature had mandated specific findings of fact and conclusions of law as to each of the eight factors provided in the forum non conveniens statute. See 227 W.Va. at 649–50, 713 S.E.2d at 364–65. That simply is not the case. The Legislature, in the closing subsection to section 1a, addressed in general rather than specific terms, the need for trial courts to “set forth specific findings of fact and conclusions
That decision was issued before I joined the Court.
of law” regarding their decisions pertaining to motions seeking dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens. W.Va.Code § 56–1–1a(e). That directive is not the equivalent of a mandate requiring individual findings addressing each statutory factor provided for “considerat[ion]” when ruling on this issue. Consequently, this Court's holding in Zakaib that the Legislature mandated specific findings as to each of the eight statutory factors set forth in West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a fails upon analysis. That decretal was made by this Court and not by the Legislature.
Rather than prolonging this matter further, I submit that the interests of justice and the finite judicial resources of this state would have been better served if this Court had simply examined the trial court's rulings pursuant to the statutory factors at issue and proceeded to reach the determination required by this case: Application of the principles of forum non conveniens compels the conclusion that the plaintiffs' cause of action has no business being tried in this state. This is easily demonstrated by an examination of the facts at issue in conjunction with the existing record in this case. The first factor, the existence of an alternative forum, is easily demonstrated. Everything that has any significance whatsoever to this case occurred, exists, or resides in Michigan. Importantly, the only West Virginia resident—the automobile dealership that originally sold the vehicle (Jack Garrett Ford)—has consented to be subject to the jurisdiction of Michigan courts. The second factor, which looks at whether maintaining the action in West Virginia would work a substantial injustice on the moving party—here the petitioners—is clear. Because most of the witnesses required to testify regarding the facts of the accident reside in Michigan and are beyond the subpoena power of this state, the petitioners will not be able to compel their attendance at a trial that transpires in West Virginia. The third factor examines whether the alternate forum can exert jurisdiction over the defendants. Given the consent of Jack Garrett Ford to Michigan's assertion of personal jurisdiction over him, that matter has already been resolved in favor of Michigan being a proper forum. The fourth factor looks to the residency of the plaintiffs, who are all Michigan residents. The fifth factor considers where the cause of action accrued. Because Michigan is the situs of the plaintiffs' accident and their injuries, there can be no doubt that the cause of action accrued in Michigan. In the same vein, any theory predicated on a design or manufacturing defect points to Michigan because it is the situs of both the vehicle's design and construction.
Regarding the sixth factor, which weighs the private and public interests, courts are instructed to consider “the extent to which an injury or death resulted from acts or omissions that occurred in this State.” W.Va.Code § 56–1–1a(a)(6). Given the location where the plaintiffs sustained their injuries, this factor points heavily towards the case being tried in Michigan. The ability of the Michigan courts to compel witnesses further weighs in favor of Michigan as the preferred jurisdiction for resolution of this controversy. Our Legislature further directed that the courts, in addressing this sixth factor, seek to have “localized controversies decided within the State,” while attempting to avoid “unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law.” Id. Simply put, Michigan has a far greater interest in resolving this Michigan-created and Michigan-oriented controversy.
As the petitioners aptly observe, “a Michigan forum would avoid burdening a Roane County jury from deciding a case involving events and lead parties that have nothing to do with Roane County.”
The seventh factor examines whether an unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation can be avoided by granting the requested dismissal. The petitioners maintain that if this case stays in West Virginia, they may be forced to litigate this matter in multiple venues. And as to the final factor regarding whether Michigan law provides a remedy for the plaintiffs' injuries, the answer
The plaintiffs also filed a lawsuit against the individuals who struck their vehicle in Ohio. Venue of that matter has not been fully resolved as the granting of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens filed by the petitioners is currently being appealed.
is an unequivocal yes. Michigan law clearly recognizes product liability claims against manufacturers of allegedly defective products. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2945 to .2947 (2004); see also Huff v. Ford Motor Co., 127 Mich.App. 287, 338 N.W.2d 387, 390 (1983) ( “Michigan courts recognize that a manufacturer owes a duty to users of its product to furnish a product which is not unreasonably dangerous when used in a manner intended or in a manner reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer.”).
While “[t]he weight assigned to each factor varies because each case turns on its own unique facts,” each and every factor in this case weighs in favor of an immediate dismissal of this case. State ex rel. North River Ins. Co. v. Chafin, 233 W.Va. 289, 295, 758 S.E.2d 109, 115 (2014). The petitioners correctly observed: “If dismissal for forum non conveniens is not required here, it is difficult to imagine any circumstances in which a circuit court would abuse its discretion in declining to dismiss an action.” And while the majority focused exclusively on the Legislature's inclusion of the term “shall” in the final subsection of West Virginia Code § 56–1–1a, the occurrence of that same directive in the opening paragraph—a trial court “shall decline to exercise jurisdiction” upon a finding that the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties so require—arguably has even more import. Id. Not only do the interests of justice and concerns of convenience to the parties unequivocally point to a Michigan forum in this case, but keeping this case in our judicial system for even one more day is an inexcusable waste of judicial resources.
Of critical significance, however, is the fact that the three-year Michigan statute of limitations will run on June 22, 2015. This fact alone should have compelled the majority to issue a decision on the ultimate issue, rather than forestalling the matter with an unnecessary remand likely to further protract this litigation.
--------
Based upon the foregoing, I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Justice Benjamin joins in this dissent.