Sullivan v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

Majority - Tauro, District Judge

Yes, a federal district court properly denies a defendant's motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens or failure to join indispensable parties when the defendant fails to provide sufficient evidence to establish an adequate alternative forum or to show that potential joint tortfeasors are 'required' or 'indispensable.' The court denied Starwood's motion to dismiss on both grounds, finding that Starwood failed to meet its heavy burden for forum non conveniens and did not demonstrate that the alleged absent parties were required or indispensable under Rule 19. Regarding forum non conveniens, the court found that Starwood failed to show China was an adequate alternative forum. Starwood merely provided a website printout of the Civil Code of China without an affidavit from someone familiar with Chinese law to verify its claims. It also failed to provide proof of a comparable cause of action for Mrs. Sullivan's loss of consortium claim, the accessibility of Chinese courts for American plaintiffs, or the applicable statute of limitations in China. Even if China were an adequate forum, the court determined that the private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal. Most key witnesses (the Sullivans, DeCosta, Tao, and Mr. Sullivan's long-term treatment physicians) are in Massachusetts. While Starwood argued about Chinese doctors and a necessary viewing of the garage, these were insufficient, and the practical burdens on the Sullivans (a 69-year-old disabled man) were greater for litigating in China than on Starwood (a U.S. corporation) for litigating in Massachusetts. Public interest factors also weighed against dismissal, as Massachusetts has a strong interest in providing relief to its residents, and the U.S. has an interest in resolving disputes involving its citizens. The court emphasized that a plaintiff's choice of forum is rarely disturbed. Regarding failure to join indispensable parties under Rule 19, the court found that Starwood failed to demonstrate that the absent parties (Beijing Jinmao, Beijing Modern, and Juntai Parking) were 'required' under Rule 19(a) or 'indispensable' under Rule 19(b). Under Rule 19(a)(1)(A), complete relief could be afforded between the Sullivans and Starwood, as the court could order Starwood to pay damages. Under Rule 19(a)(1)(B), Starwood did not show that the absent parties' interests would be impaired, nor that Starwood would face a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations (distinguishing between inconsistent results and obligations). The court reiterated the established rule that joint tortfeasors and indemnitors are generally not required parties. Since the absent parties were not 'required,' they could not be 'indispensable' under Rule 19(b). Even so, the court found the inconvenience of Starwood having to file a separate contribution/indemnity suit in China was not sufficient prejudice to warrant dismissal, and the court could still award adequate relief to the Sullivans.