Forum non conveniens; Whether the United Nations Convention against Corruption Article 53 foreclosed the application of the doctrine; Deference to a plaintiff’s choice of forum; Availability of an alternate forum; Whether plaintiff’s choice of forum was “unnecessarily burdensome”; Gulf Oil Corp v Gilbert

[This appeal was from the WD-MI.] The court held that the United Nations Convention against Corruption (the Convention) did not foreclose application of forum non conveniens in this case, that plaintiff-Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social’s (IMSS) choice of forum was entitled to little deference, that Mexican courts are available to hear the case, and that the public and private interest factors supported granting defendant-Stryker’s motion to dismiss. IMSS, the agency “responsible for government-run medical care for most Mexican citizens[,]” sued Stryker for allegedly bribing Mexican officials to facilitate the sale of its products in Mexico. Stryker moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. IMSS argued that application of the doctrine was foreclosed under the Convention, and that the district court abused its discretion in granting Stryker’s motion. The court first rejected IMSS’s claim that Article 53 of the Convention “generally prohibits federal courts from applying forum non conveniens when a foreign state sues alleging corruption.” It found no support for this position in the wording of the Convention or in the legislative history. Additionally, IMSS “identified no implementing statute that turns the Convention into binding federal law.” Thus, its argument that the Convention foreclosed application of forum non conveniens failed. The court then considered the factors used to review a district court’s reasons for declining to exercise jurisdiction under forum non conveniens. It determined that IMSS’s choice of forum was not entitled to significant deference where “a foreign plaintiff like IMSS receives less deference to its choice of forum” and the forum’s convenience “‘cannot be presumed[.]’” It concluded that an alternative forum – Mexico – was available and adequate. The court then considered whether “‘plaintiff’s choice of forum is unnecessarily burdensome.’” The district court found that “the public interest factors favored dismissal because ‘[v]irtually all of the relevant acts—from allegedly paid bribes to IMSS officials, to alleged misconduct by a Mexican law firm—occurred in Mexico, and almost all of the alleged actors are in Mexico[.]’” The court determined that it did not abuse its discretion in this regard, or in balancing the private interests. Affirmed.