Shirlei Kirschner Camejo v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration
1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 2781, 1988 WL 11662, 838 F.2d 1374 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In maritime cases, the federal doctrine of forum non conveniens preempts conflicting state "open forum" statutes. A federal court does not abuse its discretion by dismissing a case involving foreign parties and a foreign incident when an adequate foreign forum exists and the balance of private and public interest factors overwhelmingly favors trial in that forum.
Facts:
- Joao Lazaro Camejo was a citizen and resident of Brazil.
- Camejo was employed as a diver by Superpesa Transportes Marítimos, Ltd., a Brazilian company, for offshore mineral exploration.
- On February 22, 1984, Camejo died in a diving accident while working in Brazilian territorial waters.
- At the time of his death, he was diving from the ZEPHYR II, a Panamanian-flagged rig drilling for the Brazilian national oil company, Petróleo Brasileiro, S.A. (“Petrobras”).
- Camejo was wearing a diving helmet allegedly designed and manufactured by U.S. Divers Corp. and Diving Systems International, Inc., both United States corporations.
Procedural Posture:
- Shirlei Camejo filed suit in a Texas state district court against eight defendants, alleging claims under the Jones Act, general U.S. maritime law, and Texas state statutes.
- Defendant Petrobras, a "foreign state," removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
- The district court dismissed Petrobras from the suit pursuant to an agreement between the parties.
- Shirlei Camejo then filed a motion to remand the case back to the Texas state court.
- The remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Jones Act claims under § 688(b) and to dismiss the remaining claims on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
- The district court denied the plaintiff's motion for remand and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, from which Shirlei Camejo, as appellant, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court abuse its discretion by dismissing a maritime case involving a foreign plaintiff and a foreign accident on the grounds of forum non conveniens, rather than remanding it to a state court that has an "open forum" statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Goldberg, Circuit Judge
No, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the case. The court's dismissal of the claims under the Jones Act and general U.S. maritime law was correct based on the 1982 amendment, 46 U.S.C. § 688(b), which bars such claims by non-resident aliens for incidents in foreign waters related to offshore mineral exploration. The court then properly conducted a forum non conveniens analysis, finding that Brazil was an adequate and available alternative forum. The balance of private interest factors (access to proof, witnesses, and accident site in Brazil) and public interest factors (Brazil's significant local interest versus Texas's lack thereof) heavily favored dismissal. Finally, the district court was not required to remand to the Texas state court because federal maritime law, including the forum non conveniens doctrine, preempts conflicting state laws like Texas's "open forum" statute, meaning the state court would have been compelled to dismiss the case as well.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the uniform application of the forum non conveniens standard from Piper Aircraft and Gulf Oil to all federal cases, including maritime and Jones Act claims, following the circuit's recent en banc ruling in In re Air Crash. It establishes that the federal maritime law's forum non conveniens doctrine preempts state "open forum" statutes, preventing foreign plaintiffs from using state courts to circumvent dismissal from an inconvenient federal forum in maritime disputes. This reinforces the power of federal courts to manage their dockets by declining jurisdiction over disputes that have a minimal connection to the United States and are better suited for a foreign legal system.
