Havis Francois v. Hartford Holding Company, 3rd Cir. (2011)

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 10-1693
_____________
HAVIS FRANCOIS,
as personal representative of the Estate of JASMIN FRANCOIS;
HAVIS FRANCOIS,
as personal representative of the Estate of NYANNA FRANCOIS;
JOYCE SHARPLIS,
as personal representative of the Estate of JONATHAN LAKE;
MARY ANTHONY,
as personal representative of the Estate of JOHN KELLY;
GLENIS JNO BAPTISTE,
as personal representative of the Estate of ANNE MARIE GUYE
v.
HARTFORD HOLDING COMPANY;
HARTFORD FINANCIAL CORPORATION;
JOHN DOE DEFENDANT NUMBER ONE;
CHRISTOHER ADINGUPU;
AIR ANGUILLA;
CARDINAL AIRLINES LTD.
Havis Francois, Joyce Sharplis,
Mary Anthony, Glenis Jno Baptiste,
Appellants
_____________
Appeal from the District Court
of the Virgin Islands
(D.C. Civil No. 1-00-cv-00112 and 1-01-cv-00009)
District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage
_____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
April 12, 2011
Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: April 20, 2011)
_____________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_____________
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
This case arises out of the fatal crash of Cardinal Airlines, Inc.s flight 947 on
August 23, 1998. That flight, which originated in St. Maarten in the Netherlands
Antilles, crashed on its approach to the airport in the Commonwealth of Dominica in the
West Indies, killing all of the passengers aboard and the pilot. The plaintiff-appellants
assert wrongful-death claims on behalf of the estates of two of the deceased passengers, a
Dominican national and a citizen of the Netherlands, against Cardinal Airlines and Air
Anguilla, Inc., which maintained and flew the aircraft for Cardinal Airlines. On appeal,
they ask us to review an order of the District Court dismissing the case on forum non
conveniens grounds, without prejudice to refile their actions in the Commonwealth of
Dominica. We will affirm.
I.
The decision on a forum non conveniens motion is committed to the sound
discretion of the trial court. Windt v. Qwest Commcns Intl, Inc., 529 F.3d 183, 188-89
(3d Cir. 2008) (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981)). Thus,
where the court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where
its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference.
2
Id. (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 257). After reviewing the briefs and relevant
portions of the record, we conclude that the District Court in this case correctly
determined that the Commonwealth of Dominica provides an adequate alternative forum,
considered all of the relevant public and private interest factors, and balanced those
factors reasonably.
The District Court determined that Dominica is an adequate alternative forum for
the prosecution of plaintiffs claims because Cardinal has consented to jurisdiction in
Dominica; Dominican law recognizes wrongful-death claims; a savings provision in
Dominicas Transnational Causes of Action (Product Liability) Act (TCAPL Act)
extends the statute of limitations for cases filed in Dominica after dismissal by a foreign
court on forum non conveniens grounds; and Dominican courts have indicated, in a
parallel case involving these parties and this incident, that they will enforce Cardinals
agreement to waive the statute of limitations with respect to plaintiffs claims. See
Francois v. Hartford Holding Co., No. 2000/0112, 2010 WL 1816758, at *2-4 (D.V.I.
May 5, 2010). Although we agree with plaintiffs that the District Court erred in taking
the TCAPL Acts savings provision into account (Dominican courts held that the Act
does not apply to plaintiffs claims), that was only one aspect of its analysis. We are
satisfied that the remaining considerations justify the District Courts determination.1
The District Court also concluded that both the private and public interest factors
in this case weigh in favor of dismissal. On the public interest side, it noted that the crash
1
We acknowledge that another defendant, Air Anguilla, has not consented to jurisdiction
or agreed to waive any statute of limitations defense in Dominica. However, Air
Anguilla has defaulted and, thus, will not be on trial in Dominica.
3
occurred in Dominica and Dominican law likely applies to plaintiffs claims; the flight
was not to or from the United States and no American citizens or residents were aboard;
and trying the case in the Virgin Islands would unduly burden the Courts already
overextended docket. Id. at *5. On the private interest side, the District Court considered
and rejected plaintiffs concerns about the availability of witnesses and evidence in
Dominica. Id. at *6. We agree with the District Court and conclude that none of
plaintiffs arguments on appeal, which essentially amount to requests to review de novo
issues the District Court considered and resolved against them, can overcome the
substantial deference we owe to its decision.2
II.
Plaintiffs contend that the District Court should have determined whether it had
jurisdiction over their case before dismissing it on forum non conveniens grounds.
Relying on Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp., 549
U.S. 422 (2007), the District Court declined to conclusively establish its own
jurisdiction. 2010 WL 1816759, at *6 n.17. We agree with the District Court that here,
as in Sinochem, considerations of convenience, fairness and judicial economy
supported the decision to resolve the forum non conveniens issue first, particularly given
the lack of connection between plaintiffs claims and the United States and the fact that
Dominican courts have already indicated that they are willing and able to adjudicate
those claims.
We also have considered plaintiffs argument that the District Court failed to accord
their choice of forum proper deference, and find it unavailing.
2
III.
Plaintiffs argument that the District Court abused its discretion in denying their
motion for recusal also lacks merit. Plaintiffs sought recusal on the grounds that the
District Judge (1) forfeited his impartiality by conducting a settlement conference and
facilitating settlement negotiations between the parties in March and April of 2009; and
(2) pressured plaintiffs local counsel to withdraw from the case. We have reviewed the
record and are confident that, as to the first ground, the District Court acted well within
its authority in facilitating a settlement between the parties, and, as to the second ground,
no record evidence supports plaintiffs allegations.
IV.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Havis Francois v. Hartford Holding Company, 3rd Cir. (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Havis Francois v. Hartford Holding Company, 3rd Cir. (2011)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Havis Francois v. Hartford Holding Company, 3rd Cir. (2011)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Before: SCIRICA, RENDELL and AMBRO, Circuit Judges

You might also like