SCOTUS Denies Review in Civil Procedure Cases
Here is a listing of some of the cases denied review by the Supreme Court this week touching on civil procedure topics as reported by BNA's Supreme Court Today:
Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co. v. Ito, 166 Fed.Appx. 932 (9th Cir.) (Forum non conveniens)
Review Denied: 11/13/2006 (74 U.S.L.W. 3722)
Question Presented: Did the Ninth Circuit's decision to reverse district court's decision to dismiss action, on ground of forum non conveniens, by U.S. citizen against a Japanese insurer, conflict with decisions of other circuits with respect to standard of proof, violate public policy, and ignore concerns of comity?
Summary of Ruling Below: The district court abused its discretion when it dismissed, on the basis of forum non conveniens, an action by U.S. citizen injured in car accident in Japan, alleging breach of insurer's agreement to pay medical costs incurred by her in United States. The district court failed to require the defendant to make a clear showing of facts required to merit forum non conveniens dismissal. Additionally, the district court improperly balanced the private and public interest factors by (i) failing to give any deference to plaintiff's U.S. citizenship and choice of home forum, (ii) improperly relying on allegedly numerous witnesses and documents in Japan rather than assessing relevance and materiality of proposed testimony and documents to allegations of complaint, (iii) failing to accord proper weight to California's interest in protecting its citizens and ensuring that they are compensated for injuries occurring in California, and (iv) improperly analyzing issue of court congestion by commenting on congestion in U.S. District Court for Central District of California without considering whether Japan provided speedier forum. Based on reweighing of private and public interest factors, Japan is not a more convenient forum for this action and thus plaintiff may pursue her action in forum that she selected.
Communication Bridge Global Inc. v. Chow, 2006 WL 466668 (Cal. Ct. App.) (Default Judgment)
Review Denied: 11/13/2006 (75 U.S.L.W. 3220)
Question Presented: When a corporation's two successive attorneys' gross malpractice and repeated positive misconduct caused default judgment to be entered against their client corporation, and that corporation, then insolvent, cannot afford third attorney, is it appropriate to grant the corporation equitable relief, when corporation applies for relief from default immediately after obtaining new legal counsel?
Summary of Ruling Below: Corporation that waited more than two years before moving to set aside a default judgment that had been entered against it, allegedly on the basis of extrinsic fraud because it lacked funds necessary to hire an attorney, demonstrated lack of diligence that precludes grant of motion.
Readers may visit http://pubs.bna.com/ip/bna/lwt.nsf/StatusCasesDeniedRev for a full listing of cases denied review.