Wellton International Express v. Bank of China

Background

The plaintiffs are Wellton International Express and Wellton Express, Inc. The remaining defendant was Bank of China (Hong Kong) (BOC). On April 3, 2020, the court had granted motions to dismiss filed by JP Morgan Chase Bank and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and had dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ New York-law claims against BOC. The court then ordered the plaintiffs to explain why the rest of the case should not be dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. That doctrine allows a court to dismiss when a foreign court is a more appropriate and convenient place to decide the dispute.

Analysis

The court applied a three-step forum non conveniens analysis: the amount of deference owed to the plaintiffs’ forum choice, whether an adequate alternative forum existed, and whether private and public-interest factors favored another forum.

The court gave the plaintiffs’ choice of New York relatively little deference. Only Wellton Express called New York home, while Wellton International and BOC were both based in Hong Kong and were the parties to the payment order at the center of the claims. The court found that the lawsuit had little genuine connection to New York. It also found that the relevant Wellton International and BOC employees, witnesses, and documents were likely in Hong Kong. The court noted that BOC appeared subject to suit in New York, but found no indication that the plaintiffs would lose access to suitable legal representation in Hong Kong or that litigating there would be less convenient or more expensive.

The court found Hong Kong to be an adequate alternative forum because BOC was subject to the jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts and Hong Kong law provided causes of action covering the plaintiffs’ claims. The court also found that the private-interest factors favored Hong Kong because most evidence and witnesses were there, a Hong Kong court could better compel attendance by unwilling Hong Kong witnesses, and bringing witnesses to New York would involve substantial transportation and translation costs. The public-interest factors likewise favored Hong Kong because the dispute involved a payment order between a Hong Kong company and a Hong Kong bank entered into in Hong Kong, Hong Kong had the stronger interest in resolving it, and Hong Kong law governed the dispute.

Disposition

Judge Oetken concluded that New York was genuinely inconvenient and that Hong Kong was significantly preferable. The court therefore dismissed the case pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens and directed the clerk to close the case. The opinion does not identify the precise underlying causes of action beyond stating that Hong Kong law supplied causes of action covering the plaintiffs’ claims.