Dibble v. Torax Medical, Inc.

Background

Craig Dibble brought a product-liability action against Torax Medical, Inc. and Ethicon, Inc., alleging negligence, negligence per se, and strict liability. The claims arose from the failure of two LINX Reflux Management System devices, which were designed to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease. A surgeon in the United Kingdom implanted the first device in 2016. After Dibble’s symptoms returned and testing in Japan showed that the device had failed, he underwent replacement surgery in Colorado in 2021. The replacement device also failed, and Dibble underwent additional tests and treatments in Thailand and the United Kingdom.

Dibble is a citizen of the United Kingdom and has lived in Japan since 1994. Torax is incorporated in Delaware and had its principal place of business in Ohio; Ethicon is incorporated in New Jersey and has its principal place of business there. Torax is a subsidiary of Ethicon. The parties did not dispute that jurisdiction and venue were proper in the District of Minnesota.

Motion to Dismiss

The defendants moved to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. That doctrine allows a court to decline to hear a case even when jurisdiction and venue are proper if another available forum would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses. The defendants argued that the case should be heard in the United Kingdom because the events underlying the claims occurred outside Minnesota.

Court’s Analysis

The court first considered whether the United Kingdom was an adequate and available alternative forum. It found that the forum was available because the defendants consented to jurisdiction there and agreed to accept service of process. The court also found the forum adequate because the defendants provided sufficient, undisputed information showing that the English judicial system could offer a fair and meaningful forum for Dibble’s claims.

The court then considered private factors, including access to evidence, the availability of witnesses, and the enforceability of a judgment. It found that these factors overwhelmingly favored dismissal. Most, if not all, of the relevant events occurred in the United Kingdom or elsewhere outside Minnesota, and relevant documents and witnesses would be located outside Minnesota. The court also noted that corporate witnesses and documents were no longer in Minnesota and that the defendants agreed to make witnesses and documents under their control available for litigation in the United Kingdom. Dibble raised no concerns about enforcing a United Kingdom judgment, and the court identified none.

The court also found that public factors favored dismissal. The United Kingdom had a substantially greater connection to and interest in the dispute, while the case was not a local Minnesota controversy. The court noted that Dibble is a United Kingdom citizen and that at least some of his family lives there. Neither side raised concerns about judicial economy in Minnesota or the United Kingdom.

Disposition

The court concluded that the relevant factors strongly favored dismissal under forum non conveniens. It declined Dibble’s request to amend his complaint to add facts connecting the case to Minnesota, finding that amendment would be futile. The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the case with prejudice. It ordered that judgment be entered accordingly.