Case Update (20 June 2024): Abraham v. Samuel; nothing precludes a Respondent’s motion to dismiss an Abduction Convention case for forum non conveniens
On June 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division, concluded that it could entertain a Respondent Parent’s motion to dismiss a Petition to return a minor child to Japan using the Hague Abduction Convention on the basis that the federal court was an inconvenient forum. The Respondent sought to dismiss the case in lieu of forcing the petitioner to refile in the state court, which is geographically located a mere few yards from the federal courthouse in Champaign.
“A federal court has discretion to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non conveniens when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear the case, and trial in the chosen forum would establish oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant out of all proportion to plaintiff’s convenience, or the chosen forum is inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal problems.” Purusant to ICARA, the U.S. implementing statute, both the state and federal courts would have jurisdiction to hear this matter. Petitioner argued that the remedy of forum non conveniens is categorically inapplicable in ICARA proceedings, and that she alone is entitled to choose between state and federal court by virtue of being able to institute the action. The court also noted that the Respondent cited not one single example of an ICARA case dismissed on this ground, and the court was unable to locate any. It also noted that this is an extreme and rare remedy, but “because there is no affirmative indication that forum non conveniens is per se prohibited in this context, the court will address the merits of Respondent’s argument.”
The court then went forward to address a number of private interest and public interest factors. The private interest factors included the ease of access to sources of proof, availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses, and other practical problems related to the ease, expeditious nature, and expense of proceedings. The public interest factors included administrative difficulties from court congestion, having local disputes decided at home, the application of foreign law, the burden on citizens with jury duty, and a few others. The court noted “there is ordinarily ‘a strong presumption of a plaintiff’s choice of forum’”, also stating that normally this presumption does not apply to foreign litigants, but since there is no option for the Petitioner to file in Japan, and the case must be filed in Illinois, the presumption does apply.
The Respondent asserted that the state court: has more expertise hearing family cases involving multinational parties, commonly conducts in-camera interviews with children, is accustomed to appointing GALs, psychologists, welfare officers, or attorneys to assess the child’s wishes, vets the qualifications of GALs and child’s attorneys, and has the requisite technology to allow remote testimony. The district court was not persuaded by these arguments, noting that its trial was scheduled to commence in 2-weeks time, that a GAL had already been appointed and made a report, and that most of the Respondent’s points were inaccurate, “or, at the very least, moot.”
