U.S. Supreme Court dismisses case on non conveniens grounds.

• Author: Ziemer, David

Byline: David Ziemer

Jurisdiction need not be established before dismissing a case on forum non conveniens grounds, the U.S. Supreme Court held on Mar. 5. The opinion is consistent with governing Seventh Circuit precedent, Intec USA, LLC, v. Engle, 467 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2006), but is noteworthy nonetheless for dicta concerning when a district court should determine its own jurisdiction first. Sinochem International Co., Ltd., a Chinese state-owned company, and Malaysia International Shipping Corp., a Malaysian corporation, had a dispute over a shipment of steel from Philadelphia to China. Sinochem sued Malaysia in China, and the court ordered that Malaysia's ship be "arrested." Malaysia responded by suing Sinochem in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia. Sinochem moved to dismiss on several grounds, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and forum non conveniens. The court concluded that it had subject mater jurisdiction, but no personal jurisdiction over Sinochem. However, it acknowledged that additional discovery might reveal that personal jurisdiction is present. It disallowed such discovery, however, concluding that, regardless of whether jurisdiction could be established, China is a more convenient forum for the litigation. The Third Circuit reversed, holding that a court may not dismiss a case under the forum non conveniens doctrine unless it first determines definitely that it has jurisdiction over the matter. 436 F.3d 349 (3d. Cir. 2006). The U.S. Supreme Court granted review, and reversed the Third Circuit, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The court acknowledged that, in Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998), it stated that, "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause." Nevertheless, the court concluded that a court could dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, without first determining jurisdiction, because the dismissal is not resolution on the merits: "Dismissal short of reaching the merits means that court will not 'proceed at all' to an adjudication of the cause." Quoting the Seventh Circuit in Intec USA with approval, the court iterated, "Jurisdiction is vital only if the court proposes to issue a judgment on the merits." Accordingly, the court held that a district court may issue a forum non conveniens dismissal, bypassing jurisdictional questions, if considerations of convenience, fairness, and...