forum non conveniens doctrine in Delaware

2024Ct. 2017) (citation omitted). 138 Joint Stipulation. 139 Martinez, 86 A.3d at 1109 . 140 Id. at 1109-10 . 30 Deadspin avers that California’s retraction statute and anti-SLAPP law “represent important policy decisions” that should compel this Court to allow California an opportunity to decide this case.141 But Delaware courts are fully capable of applying California law and “often decide legal issues—even unsettled ones—under the law of other jurisdictions.”142 The application of California law here is not sufficient reason to warrant dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.143 5.

2024Ct. 2017) (citation omitted). 138 Joint Stipulation. 139 Martinez, 86 A.3d at 1109 . 140 Id. at 1109-10 . 30 Deadspin avers that California’s retraction statute and anti-SLAPP law “represent important policy decisions” that should compel this Court to allow California an opportunity to decide this case.141 But Delaware courts are fully capable of applying California law and “often decide legal issues—even unsettled ones—under the law of other jurisdictions.”142 The application of California law here is not sufficient reason to warrant dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.143 5.

2022Litig., 964 A.2d at 117 (stating forum non conveniens “is not a vehicle by which the Court should determine which forum would be most convenient” (citing Taylor, 689 A.2d at 1199 )). 73 See Martinez, 86 A.3d at 1106 (“Delaware trial judges must decide whether the defendants have shown that the forum non conveniens factors weigh so overwhelmingly in their favor that dismissal of the Delaware litigation is required to avoid undue hardship and inconvenience to them.”).

2019Ct. 1988)). 129 Martinez, 86 A.3d at 1104 (citing Taylor v. LSI Logic Corp., 689 A.2d 1196 , 198–99 (Del. 1997)). 31 courts of this State more properly should decide than those of another jurisdiction; (5) the pendency or nonpendency of a similar action or actions in another jurisdiction; and (6) all other practical problems that would make the trial of the case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. 130 To obtain dismissal of a first-filed or only-filed action in Delaware, “[t]he defendant must show ‘with particularity’ that one or more of these factors . . . imposes an ‘overwhelming hardship’ on

2015CONCLUSION “[I]n deciding forum non conveniens motions to dismiss, Delaware trial judges must decide whether the defendants have shown that the forum non conveniens factors weigh so overwhelmingly in their favor that dismissal of the 29 Parvin v. Kaufmann, 236 A.2d 425, 427 (Del. 1967) (“[A] dismissal necessarily would force the plaintiff to start anew.

2010In determining whether the forum non conveniens doctrine should be applied, a court must consider six factors, adopted in General Foods Corp. v. Cryo-Maid, Inc., 198 A.2d 681, 684 (Del.1964) (as supplemented by Parvin v. Kaufmann, 236 A.2d 425, 427 (Del.1967)).

2021The proper forum non conveniens analysis is associated with the names of the Supreme Court cases applying the doctrine in various contexts—General Foods Corp. v. Cryo–Maid, Inc.,25 McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell–Wellman Engineering Co.,26 and Gramercy Emerging Markets Fund v. Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C.27 Each of these cases dealt with a unique procedural posture—“a first-filed Delaware case with no case pending elsewhere (the Cryo–Maid test); a second-filed Delaware case with another first-filed case pending elsewhere (the McWane test); and . . . [the] Gramercy [test]—a later-filed De

2021In the interest of comity and efficiency, I may exercise discretion to stay or dismiss this matter in favor of litigation in another jurisdiction where justice so requires.33 The simultaneous nature of the actions leads to an analysis under the traditional forum non conveniens rubric.34 When applying the forum non conveniens doctrine, this Court considers six factors, often denominated the Cryo-Maid factors: 1) the applicability of Delaware law in the action; 2) the relative ease of access to proof; 3) the availability of compulsory process for witnesses; 4) the pendency or non-pendency of any

2022Litig., 964 A.2d at 117 (stating forum non conveniens “is not a vehicle by which the Court should determine which forum would be most convenient” (citing Taylor, 689 A.2d at 1199 )). 73 See Martinez, 86 A.3d at 1106 (“Delaware trial judges must decide whether the defendants have shown that the forum non conveniens factors weigh so overwhelmingly in their favor that dismissal of the Delaware litigation is required to avoid undue hardship and inconvenience to them.”).

2020Where, as here, a stay likely will have the same effect as a dismissal, Collision must show that one or more of the forum non conveniens factors weigh so heavily in Collision’s favor that it will face overwhelming hardship if the Delaware action proceeds.36 The “overwhelming hardship” standard is “not intended to be preclusive,” but rather is a “stringent standard that holds defendants who seek to deprive a plaintiff of her chosen forum to an appropriately high burden.”37 The forum non conveniens factors require the Court to weigh the following considerations: (i) the relative ease of access t

2020DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., 729 A.2d 832, 835 (Del. 1999)). 12 location, the Court cannot, under this fact pattern, dismiss this civil proceeding under a traditional forum non conveniens framework.

2018April 28, 2014) (citing Ison, 729 A.2d at 845 ; Taylor, 689 A.2d at 1200-01 ; Martinez 2014 WL 685685, at *5 ). 80 Barrera, 2016 WL 4938876 , at *8. 81 Id. 15 regulating the conduct of entities incorporated under the laws of Delaware.”82 Further, the “Plaintiffs’ choice of forum must be respected unless Defendant presents unique circumstances that create the overwhelming hardship required for a forum non conveniens dismissal under Delaware law.”83 Recently, the Delaware Supreme Court held that the availability of an alternative forum is a factor courts should consider in a forum non conveniens

2024Pendency of Similar Actions in Other Jurisdictions Where, as here, there exist no other actions pending between the parties, “the plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded even more weight.”144 The absence of other pending litigation between the Armentas and Deadspin therefore “weighs significantly against” granting Deadspin’s forum non conveniens motion.145 141 Op. Br. 29. 142 Berger v. Intelident Solutions, Inc., 906 A.2d 134, 137 (Del. 2006); see Taylor v. LSI Logic Corp., 689 A.2d 1196, 1200 (Del. 1997) (“It is not unusual for courts to wrestle with [even] open questions of the law of sister

2022CVS instead blithely claims this action implicates “open questions of Rhode Island insurance law” that are better decided by Rhode Island courts.104 Our Supreme Court has made clear that’s not enough 102 See Deuley v. DynCorp Int’l, Inc., 8 A.3d 1156, 1161 (Del. 2010) (avoiding choice-of-law analysis because the conflict was “false” and the result under the competing laws would be the same). 103 Berger v. Intelident Sols., Inc., 906 A.2d 134, 137 (Del. 2006) (internal citations omitted). 104 CVS’s Mot. to Dismiss at 18. -25- under the forum non conveniens analysis.

2023Feb. 17, 2014). 30 Id. 31 See Gramercy Emerging Markets Fund v. Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C., 173 A.3d 1033, 1036 (Del. 2017). 7 foreign action is first-filed, the Court will conduct an analysis under McWane.32 But, if a movant seeks a stay under forum non conveniens grounds and multiple actions are considered contemporaneously filed, this Court examines the motion to stay “’under the traditional forum non conveniens framework’ without ‘preference for one action over the other’ to avoid rewarding the victor in a ‘race to the courthouse.’”33 In other words, “the movant need only demonstrate that

2021The proper forum non conveniens analysis is associated with the names of the Supreme Court cases applying the doctrine in various contexts—General Foods Corp. v. Cryo–Maid, Inc.,25 McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell–Wellman Engineering Co.,26 and Gramercy Emerging Markets Fund v. Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C.27 Each of these cases dealt with a unique procedural posture—“a first-filed Delaware case with no case pending elsewhere (the Cryo–Maid test); a second-filed Delaware case with another first-filed case pending elsewhere (the McWane test); and . . . [the] Gramercy [test]—a later-filed De

2026Super. 2020)). 28 See id. (explaining different standards apply to a forum non conveniens motion depending on the parties’ litigation history). 29 263 A.2d 281 (Del. 1970). 7 met, ‘McWane and its progeny establish a strong preference for the litigation of a dispute in the forum in which the first action’ was filed.”30 Finally, “[i]n addition to the comity considerations articulated in McWane, [Delaware Courts], in assessing motions to stay Delaware litigation under the first-filed rule, frequently analyze[] the same ‘practicality’ factors traditionally applied under the forum non conveniens do

2025Dismissal in Deference to Florida The defendants also request the dismissal or stay of this action in favor of the Sarasota Action, citing the McWane doctrine.216 Under McWane, this court may exercise its discretion to stay an action “when there is a prior action pending elsewhere, in a court capable of doing prompt and complete justice, involving the same parties and the same issues.”217 “If the foreign action is not ‘first-filed,’ the Court will pursue an inquiry ‘akin to a forum non conveniens analysis.’”218 When this action was filed on February 29, 2024, UAV did not sue on the Services Ag

2015PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS Trubuilt argues that the Mozeiks’ Complaint should be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens. 16 Because the Mozeiks and Trubuilt are both 11 Martinez, 86 A.3d at 1104 (quoting Chrysler, 669 A.2d at 105 ) (internal quotations omitted). 12 Id. (“[T]o prevail under the forum non conveniens doctrine, a defendant must meet the high burden of showing that the traditional forum non conveniens factors weigh so heavily that the defendant will face overwhelming hardship if the lawsuit proceeds in Delaware.”). 13 Chrysler, 669 A.2d at 105 . 14 See id. at 107 15 Martinez, 8

2015PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS Trubuilt argues that the Mozeiks’ Complaint should be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens. 16 Because the Mozeiks and Trubuilt are both 11 Martinez, 86 A.3d at 1104 (quoting Chrysler, 669 A.2d at 105 ) (internal quotations omitted). 12 Id. (“[T]o prevail under the forum non conveniens doctrine, a defendant must meet the high burden of showing that the traditional forum non conveniens factors weigh so heavily that the defendant will face overwhelming hardship if the lawsuit proceeds in Delaware.”). 13 Chrysler, 669 A.2d at 105 . 14 See id. at 107 15 Martinez, 8

1989The Supreme Court of Delaware in Kolber v. Holyoke Shares, Inc., Del.Supr., 213 A.2d 444 (1965) discussed the defen *307 dant’s burden of proving inconvenience under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and held that “dismissal ... on the basis of ... forum non conveniens ], and the ultimate defeat of plaintiff’s choice of forum, may occur only in the rare case in which the combination and weight of the factors to be considered balance overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant.” Id. at 447 (emphasis added).

1989The Supreme Court of Delaware in Kolber v. Holyoke Shares, Inc., Del.Supr., 213 A.2d 444 (1965) discussed the defen *307 dant’s burden of proving inconvenience under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, and held that “dismissal ... on the basis of ... forum non conveniens ], and the ultimate defeat of plaintiff’s choice of forum, may occur only in the rare case in which the combination and weight of the factors to be considered balance overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant.” Id. at 447 (emphasis added).

2021DuPont de Nemours & Co., 86 A.3d 1102, 1104 (Del. 2014), as revised (Mar. 4, 2014); Warburg, Pincus Ventures, LP v. Schrapper, 774 A.2d 264, 269 (Del. 2001). 17 Nat’l Union Fire Ins.

2021DuPont de Nemours & Co., 86 A.3d 1102, 1104 (Del. 2014), as revised (Mar. 4, 2014); Warburg, Pincus Ventures, LP v. Schrapper, 774 A.2d 264, 269 (Del. 2001). 17 Nat’l Union Fire Ins.

2019The Mississippi Federal Court, which is capable of prompt and complete justice, has made it clear 29 Miller v. Phillips Petroleum Co. Norway, 537 A.2d 190, 202 (Del. 1988) (citing Parvin v. Kaufmann, 236 A.2ds 425, 427 (Del. 1967); General Foods Corp. v. Cryo- Maid, Inc., 198 A.2d 681, 684 (Del. 1964)). 10 that it intends to exercise jurisdiction over this dispute.30 Thus, one or more of the forum non conveniens factors, either separately or together, must subject Wilmington Trust to sufficient hardship to warrant staying the Delaware Declaratory Judgment Action in favor of the Mississippi Act

2019The Mississippi Federal Court, which is capable of prompt and complete justice, has made it clear 28 Miller v. Phillips Petroleum Co. Norway, 537 A.2d 190, 202 (Del. 1988) (citing Parvin v. Kaufmann, 236 A.2ds 425, 427 (Del. 1967); General Foods Corp. v. Cryo- Maid, Inc., 198 A.2d 681, 684 (Del. 1964)). 10 that it intends to exercise jurisdiction over this dispute.29 Thus, one or more of the forum non conveniens factors, either separately or together, must subject Wilmington Trust to sufficient hardship to warrant staying the Delaware Declaratory Judgment Action in favor of the Mississippi Act

2016Accordingly, in deciding forum non conveniens motions to dismiss, Delaware trial judges must decide whether the defendants have shown that the forum non conveniens factors weigh so overwhelmingly in their favor that dismissal of the Delaware litigation is required to avoid undue hardship and inconvenience to them.”). 4 See, e.g., Lisa, S.A. v. Mayorga, 993 A.2d 1042, 1047 (Del. 2010). 3 Bulgaria.

2016Although the McWane doctrine disfavors later-filed Delaware suits, a stay or dismissal in favor of the first-filed action is not a matter of right. 28 When a party moves to stay or dismiss a later-filed Delaware suit, the Court must consider whether there is a prior pending action in another jurisdiction that involves the same parties and issues and whether the other jurisdiction’s courts are capable of delivering prompt and complete justice. 29 These factors, as well as all other pertinent facts and circumstances, are balanced against “the possibility of inconsistent and conflicting rulings i

2015Opening Br. 11–12. 86 See Def’s Opening Br. 7 (conceding that this factor “is not applicable here because the case involves mobile and web-based application technologies that can be viewed an made available electronically.”); Pl’s Answering Br. 3 (“The third Cyro-Maid factor—the possibility of the view of the premises—is not implicated in the instant case and thus warrants no further attention here.”). 87 LSI Logic Corp., 689 A.2d at 1200 (emphasis added); see also Candlewood Timber Group, 859 A.2d at 1002 (finding no overwhelming hardship where the application of Argentine law required “trans

2008See Taylor v. LSI Logic Corp., 689 A.2d 1196, 1200 (Del.1997) ("The application of foreign law is not sufficient reason to warrant dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.”). 28 . 859 A.2d 989, 1002 (Del.2004) (emphasis added). 29 .

1973Application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens “presupposes at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to process; 1 the doctrine furnishes criteria for choice between them.” Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507, 508 , 67 S.Ct. 839, 842 , 91 L.Ed. 1055, 1061 (1947); Dietrich v. Texas National Petroleum Co., 6 Storey 435 , 193 A.2d 579 (Super.Ct.1963).

1973Application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens “presupposes at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to process; 1 the doctrine furnishes criteria for choice between them.” Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 507, 508 , 67 S.Ct. 839, 842 , 91 L.Ed. 1055, 1061 (1947); Dietrich v. Texas National Petroleum Co., 6 Storey 435 , 193 A.2d 579 (Super.Ct.1963).

1989See generally Moore Golf, Inc. v. Ewing, Del.Supr., 269 A.2d 51, 52 (1970).

1975Moore Gulf, Inc. v. Ewing, Del.Supr., 269 A.2d 51 (1970).

2023Civil Rule 37(d) Defendants ask the Court to dismiss the entire action pursuant to Superior Court Civil Rule 37(d) because of Plaintiff’s failure to appear at the Delaware 67 The Delaware Supreme Court has indicated that, in evaluating the “other practical problems” prong in a forum non conveniens analysis, “the Superior Court should consider, on a case-by-case basis, whether the court’s resources should be deployed to resolve cases with little connection to Delaware[,]” especially where, as here, “Delaware has no real connection to the dispute except for the defendants’ place of incorporation

2021The proper forum non conveniens analysis is associated with the names of the Supreme Court cases applying the doctrine in various contexts—General Foods Corp. v. Cryo–Maid, Inc.,25 McWane Cast Iron Pipe Corp. v. McDowell–Wellman Engineering Co.,26 and Gramercy Emerging Markets Fund v. Allied Irish Banks, P.L.C.27 Each of these cases dealt with a unique procedural posture—“a first-filed Delaware case with no case pending elsewhere (the Cryo–Maid test); a second-filed Delaware case with another first-filed case pending elsewhere (the McWane test); and . . . [the] Gramercy [test]—a later-filed De

1982In the wake of McWane, this Court espouses the notion that its discretion in ruling upon a motion to stay will be “sparingly exercised” in any case where there is no prior action pending in another jurisdiction, Fast Foodmakers, Inc. v. Greisler, Del.Super., 290 A.2d 1, 3 (1972), recognizing that “litigation should be confined to the forum in which it is first commenced,” 263 A.2d at 283 .

1982Boston VLCC Tankers, Etc. v. Bethlehem Steel, 415 A.2d 492 ; Fast Foodmakers, Inc. v. Greisler, 290 A.2d 1 ; Fenix & Scisson, Inc. v. Underground Storage, Inc., 262 A.2d at 263 ; General Foods Corporation v. Cryo-Maid, Inc., 198 A.2d at 684 ; Parvin v. Kaufmann, Del.Supr., 236 A.2d 425, 427 (1967).

2023Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa. v. RLC Corp., 449 A.2d 257, 260 (Del.

2022CVS instead blithely claims this action implicates “open questions of Rhode Island insurance law” that are better decided by Rhode Island courts.104 Our Supreme Court has made clear that’s not enough 102 See Deuley v. DynCorp Int’l, Inc., 8 A.3d 1156, 1161 (Del. 2010) (avoiding choice-of-law analysis because the conflict was “false” and the result under the competing laws would be the same). 103 Berger v. Intelident Sols., Inc., 906 A.2d 134, 137 (Del. 2006) (internal citations omitted). 104 CVS’s Mot. to Dismiss at 18. -25- under the forum non conveniens analysis.

2022CVS instead blithely claims this action implicates “open questions of Rhode Island insurance law” that are better decided by Rhode Island courts.104 Our Supreme Court has made clear that’s not enough 102 See Deuley v. DynCorp Int’l, Inc., 8 A.3d 1156, 1161 (Del. 2010) (avoiding choice-of-law analysis because the conflict was “false” and the result under the competing laws would be the same). 103 Berger v. Intelident Sols., Inc., 906 A.2d 134, 137 (Del. 2006) (internal citations omitted). 104 CVS’s Mot. to Dismiss at 18. -25- under the forum non conveniens analysis.