New York's Second Department Rejects Trial Court's Attempt to Become the Nation's OxyContin Court
Today the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, issued its decision in In re OxyContin II, No. 2009-02849 (N.Y. App. Div. -- 2d Dep't Sept. 23, 2010), which should warm the heart of any defense lawyer who wants to achieve forum non conveniens dismissal of a nonresident's product liability claims in New York state court. I previously had posted about this appeal (and my amicus curiae brief supporting the defendant) here.
The case presented the question whether a New York state trial court had the discretion to retain jurisdiction over non-residents' product liability claims that have no material connection to New York. The maker of OxyContin had moved for forum non conveniens dismissal. The Staten Island trial court -- which was the statewide coordinating court for New York OxyContin cases -- issued an opinion in which it created a "mass torts exception" to the ordinary forum non conveniens rule, effectively appointing itself the nationwide coordinating court for OxyContin claims. Thanks to a law firm that was aggressively advertising for new plaintiffs, the court was actually succeeding in becoming a nationwide magnet for OxyContin claims, with plaintiffs from over 40 states and Puerto Rico.
The Second Department reversed. It noted that witnesses crucial to proximate cause and damages reside outside the subpoena power of New York courts, creating substantial problems for defendants in trying the cases.
It also reiterated that the law of plaintiffs' home states would control, and thus because "the hundreds of nonresident plaintiffs come from almost all of the 50 states and Puerto Rico, should New York courts retain those cases, they might well be called upon to apply different principles of law to identical claims." Slip op. at 3.
In addition, the court concluded that there were no countervailing considerations in favor of keeping these foreign claims in New York courts.
Accordingly, the court held that the trial court had abused its discretion in refusing to grant forum non conveniens dismissal of the claims. It directed the trial court to dismiss the claims if defendants would agree to some stipulations designed to avoid prejudice to the plaintiffs whose cases would be refiled elsewhere.
Along with a decision from New York's Appellate Division, First Department that I previously have discussed, the OxyContin II decision makes a strong case for the fact that even in the mass tort context, New York trial courts lack discretion to refuse to grant forum non conveniens dismissal of nonresidents' product liability claims that have no real connection to New York.
