Cruz v. Gen. Motors LLC

464 F.Supp.3d 906

Jose Remedios SILVA CRUZ, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-13003

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division.

Signed June 2, 2020

Samuel H. Pietsch, Johnson Law, Detroit, MI, Bradley Leger, Leger Ketchum & Cohoon, PLLC, The Woodlands, TX, for Plaintiffs.

Michael R. Carey, Dykema Gossett, PLLC, Minneapolis, MN, Michael P. Cooney, Dykema Gossett, Detroit, MI, John David Black, Dykema Gossett PLLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS (ECF No. 10) AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE A SUR-REPLY (ECF No. 17)

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

In 2018, Jose Remedios Silva Garcia, Clara Guadalupe Beltran Fraire, Desteny Aguilar Beltran, and Susana Frayre Esquivel died in a rollover vehicle accident in the State of Durango, Mexico. In this action, the personal representatives of these decedents’ estates bring several claims against Defendant General Motors LLC ("GM") arising out of the accident. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the decedents’ vehicle – a 1990 GMC Sierra – was unreasonably dangerous because of its increased risk of a rollover and its lack of a crashworthy roof.

GM has now moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ action for forum non conveniens. (See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 10.) For the reasons explained below, the Court DENIES the motion.

I

A

On July 2, 2018, driver Jose Remedios Silva Garcia and three passengers, Clara Guadalupe Beltran Fraire, Desteny Aguilar Beltran, and Susana Frayre Esquivel, were traveling in a 1990 GMC Sierra (the "Sierra") in Cuencamé, a municipality in the State of Durango, Mexico. (See Compl. ¶¶ 3–8, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.12–13.) The Sierra was manufactured in part, designed in part, assembled in final form, and sold at wholesale by GM in Wayne County, Michigan.¹ (See Compl. ¶¶ 4, 13, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.12–13; Mot. to Dismiss at 2 n.1, ECF No. 10, PageID.67.)

As Garcia was driving, the Sierra was involved in a single-vehicle accident. All of its occupants died in the accident. (See Compl. ¶¶ 9–10, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.13; Translated Accident Report, ECF No. 10-3, PageID.94–99.) At the time of the accident, Garcia lived in the United States, and the three passengers lived in Mexico. (See Garcia Pet. for Probate, ECF No. 10-6, PageID.116; Fraire Pet. for Probate, ECF No. 10-4, PageID.103; Beltran Pet. for Probate, ECF No. 10-5, PageID.110; Esquivel Pet. for Probate, ECF No. 10-7, PageID.122.)

Following the accident, estates were opened for each of the decedents in the Wayne County Probate Court, and the Plaintiffs in this action were appointed as personal representatives for the decedents. (See Pets. for Probate, ECF Nos. 10-4, 10-5, 10-6, and 10-7.) Plaintiff Arturo Aguilar Carlos is the personal representative for decedents Clara Guadalupe Beltran Fraire and Desteny Aguilar Beltran. (See Fraire Pet. for Probate, ECF No. 10-4, PageID.105; Beltran Pet. for Probate, ECF No. 10-5, PageID.111.) He lives in Mexico. (See id. ) Plaintiff Jose Remedios Silva Cruz is the personal representative for decedent Jose Remedios Silva Garcia. (See Garcia Pet. for Probate, ECF No. 10-6, PageID.117.) He lives in North Carolina. (See id. ) Plaintiff Maria Clara Beltran Fraire is the personal representative for decedent Susana Frayre Esquivel. (See Esquivel Pet. for Probate, ECF No. 10-7, PageID.123.) She lives in Texas. (See id. ) According to Plaintiffs, they opened the estates for the decedents in Wayne County because the primary asset of each estate is the claim against GM – i.e. , the claim that is being asserted in this action – and GM is located in Wayne County. (See Resp., ECF No. 15, PageID.178–179, 190.)

B

On October 9, 2019, Plaintiffs sued GM in the Wayne County Circuit Court. (See Notice of Removal ¶ 1, ECF No. 1, PageID.2.) Plaintiffs bring claims of product liability, negligent and/or gross negligent design, and breach of implied warranty and/or express warranty. (See Compl. ¶¶ 11–19, ECF No. 1-1, PageID.11–16.) Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Sierra was unreasonably dangerous because of its increased risk of a rollover and its lack of a crashworthy roof. (See id. ) GM removed the action to this Court on October 11, 2019. (See Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1, PageID.1–9.)

GM filed the instant Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens on February 28, 2020. (See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 10.) In the motion, GM argues that this action should be litigated in Mexico rather than in this Court. (See id. , PageID.71–81.) Although GM broadly asserts that this action "should be decided by a Mexican court," (id. , PageID.66), GM does not specifically identify which Mexican court would have jurisdiction over this action.²

Plaintiffs failed to timely respond to GM's motion, and on March 25, 2020, GM filed a "Reply" asking that its motion be granted. (See Reply, ECF No. 11.) The same day, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to show cause why the Court should not grant GM's motion. (See Show Cause Order, ECF No. 12.) Plaintiffs filed a response to the Court's show cause order – as well as a response to GM's motion to dismiss – on April 8, 2020.³ (See Resp., ECF No. 15.) GM then filed a substantive reply brief on April 22, 2020.⁴ (See Reply, ECF No. 16.)

After reviewing the record and the briefs submitted by the parties, the Court concludes that it can resolve GM's motion without oral argument. See E.D. Mich. Local Rule 7.1(f)(2).

II

A

"Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine that allows a district court not to exercise its jurisdiction." Jones v. IPX Int'l Equatorial Guinea, S.A. , 920 F.3d 1085, 1090 (6th Cir. 2019). The doctrine "generally applies when the alternative forum is in a foreign country, rather than in a different district within the federal system." Id. There are three considerations that a court must address when analyzing a forum non conveniens motion: "(1) whether an adequate alternative forum is available; (2) whether a balance of private and public interests suggests that trial in the chosen forum would be unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or the court; and (3) the amount of deference to give the plaintiff's choice of forum." Id. For the reasons explained below, the Court concludes that the balance of these factors warrants denying GM's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.

B

The Court turns first to whether "an alternative forum exists, which requires another forum to be both available and adequate." Id. at 1090–91 (citing Piper Aircraft v. Reyno , 454 U.S. 235, 254 n.22, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981) ). An alternative forum is typically "available" if "the defendant is amenable to process there" and is generally "adequate" if "it can remedy the alleged harm." Id. "The defendant bears the burden of identifying an alternative forum that meets these criteria." Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Grupo v. Stryker Corp. , 891 F.3d 615, 620 (6th Cir. 2018). "It bears emphasizing that 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." Id. at 619–20.

GM has not met its burden of demonstrating that Mexico is an alternative forum that is available and adequate. First, GM contends that Mexico is an available and adequate forum because GM has consented to jurisdiction in Mexico and has agreed to toll any Mexican statutes of limitations that may have run. (See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, PageID.71; Cooney Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 16, PageID.230–231.) But GM "has provided no evidence that its consent to jurisdiction in [Mexico] would be legally meaningful." Associação Brasileira , 891 F.3d at 621. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Associação Brasileira , a defendant's assertion that it is amenable to process in a foreign forum – without guidance from legal experts or citations to the forum's law or to relevant treatises – may fail to demonstrate that the foreign forum is truly available:

By way of analogy, a party's consent to a federal court's jurisdiction over her state-law claim worth $50,000 would not be legally meaningful; regardless of her consent, the federal court would be unable to hear the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. On the record before us, we do not know if Abramge can prove (or if Stryker admits) that Stryker has any connection to Brazil, nor do we know if Brazilian courts permit litigation over this subject matter. Without guidance from Brazilian legal experts or even citations to Brazilian law or treatises, we do not know whether Brazil's personal and subject-matter jurisdiction requirements could be satisfied on the facts alleged here. Stryker must point to some evidence in the record indicating that Brazil truly is "available," lest Abramge be left without a forum in which to press its case. See Deb v. SIRVA, Inc. , 832 F.3d 800, 813 (7th Cir. 2016) ; Solari [v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company ], 654 Fed.Appx. [763] at 767 [ (6th Cir. 2016) ] ; Estate of Thomson [ex rel. Estate of Rakestraw v. Toyota Motor Corp. Worldwide , 545 F.3d 357, 365 (6th Cir. 2008) ]; see also, e.g. , Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co. , 108 F.3d 799, 803 (7th Cir. 1997) (relying in part on an expert affidavit explaining that Saudi law recognizes consents to jurisdiction).

Id. at 621–22. Here, GM seems to assume that its consent to jurisdiction in a Mexican court would be valid, enforceable, and sufficient to permit such a court to adjudicate this action. But without any supporting evidence or analysis, this Court lacks a sufficient basis to reach that conclusion.

Second, GM highlights that several other American courts have found Mexican courts to be adequate and available fora for products liability actions against American manufacturers. (See Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 10, PageID.71–73; citing, among other cases, In re Ford Motor Co. , 591 F.3d 406 (5th...