Umeda v. Tesla Inc.

Background

Tomomi Umeda and Miyu Umeda moved for reconsideration of the court’s September 23, 2020 order granting Tesla Inc.’s motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. Forum non conveniens is a doctrine that allows a court to dismiss when another available forum is substantially more appropriate for resolving the dispute. The earlier order found that Japan was an adequate alternative forum and required Tesla to take certain steps to facilitate litigation there.

The earlier order recognized that the plaintiffs had legitimate reasons to sue in the Northern District of California, including Tesla’s headquarters, relevant evidence, and California’s interests in the dispute. But the court concluded that evidence important to Tesla’s defenses on liability and damages would be effectively unavailable if the case proceeded in California. The plaintiffs conceded that Japan was an adequate alternative forum.

Rule 59(e) arguments

The plaintiffs sought relief under Rule 59(e), which allows a party to ask the court to alter or amend a judgment, and under Rule 60(b), which allows relief from a judgment for specified reasons. Because the motion was filed within 28 days of the earlier order, the court treated it as a Rule 59(e) motion but considered the arguments under both rules.

The plaintiffs claimed that two items were newly discovered: the Tesla vehicle involved in the accident had been sold to an unrelated nonparty, and Mr. Ito, the driver, had stated that he was willing to appear and testify in the United States.

The court held that the vehicle-sale information did not qualify as newly discovered evidence. The vehicle’s location had been raised during the earlier dismissal proceedings, and the plaintiffs had notice of the driver’s bankruptcy proceedings while briefing on that motion was still underway. The documents indicated that the sale was effective February 26, 2020, months before the plaintiffs opposed Tesla’s dismissal motion. The plaintiffs did not show that they could not have learned of the sale earlier or informed the court before the September 23 order.

The court also found that the evidence concerning Mr. Ito could have been obtained earlier. The plaintiffs acknowledged that they did not contact him until after the hearing on the dismissal motion. In addition, the court could not compel Mr. Ito to appear if he changed his mind, and the plaintiffs had not shown that other witnesses—including the passenger in the Tesla at the time of the accident—would be available in California. The court therefore denied the motion under Rule 59(e).

Rule 60(b) arguments

Under Rule 60(b), the plaintiffs argued that the court had used the wrong standard when balancing the parties’ interests, made improper assumptions about the availability of damages evidence, and failed to properly evaluate the interests of California and Japan.

The court rejected the argument that it had applied the wrong legal standard. The earlier order described forum non conveniens dismissal as an exceptional remedy, placed on Tesla the burden of showing that an adequate alternative forum existed and that the relevant private and public interests favored dismissal, and discussed those factors in detail. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a legal error.

The court likewise rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on the vehicle-sale information and Mr. Ito’s declaration. It found that the plaintiffs could have presented the evidence earlier, had not provided sufficient justification for the delay, and had not shown that the evidence would have changed the result. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim of excusable neglect, considering the delay, the reasons for it, potential prejudice to Tesla, and the possibility that Mr. Ito might later refuse to testify.

The court found that the damages-evidence issue had already been raised in the briefing and discussed at the hearing on Tesla’s dismissal motion. The plaintiffs’ counsel had acknowledged that records concerning wages and related matters had been addressed in the criminal proceeding in Japan. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown a basis for relief from the earlier judgment on this issue.

Finally, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that it had failed to consider the case’s products-liability aspects and the interests of the two forums. The court stated that the earlier order had considered the factual background, including that the case involved both products-liability and negligence claims, and had concluded that both California and Japan had an interest in the dispute.

Disposition

The court concluded that the standards for relief under Rule 60(b) had not been met and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration under Rule 60(b). It also denied the plaintiffs’ motion under Rule 59(e). The final order states that the motion for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and 60(b) is DENIED.