JOSEPH DECICCO, ESQ., ADMINISTRATOR (ESTATE OF NANCY LOYD OLAIVAR ABD) et al. v. DYNATA, LLC et al., SC 21064

Judicial District of Waterbury

Torts; When Considering Whether a Foreign Jurisdiction Is an Adequate Alternative Forum and Conflicting Evidence Is Presented on Whether a Foreign Jurisdiction's Law Allows for Jurisdiction Over the Matter, To What Extent Must a Court Analyze a Foreign Jurisdiction's Law Such That It Constitutes a "Meaningful Assessment of the Suitability of the Alternative Forum." The plaintiffs sued the defendants, Dynata, LLC (Dynata) and certain of its officers, to recover damages for the wrongful death of twenty-nine individuals who died as a result of a building fire in the Philippines. The building housed a call center where the decedents worked as employees of SSI Philippines, Inc. (SSI). Dynata, whose principal place of business was in Shelton, had secured contracts in the United States to perform polling and data collection and to provide reports derived from that work to its United States based clients. Dynata then outsourced the work to SSI's call centers in the Philippines. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens, arguing that the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum because they had stipulated to accept service of process and had agreed to litigate the dispute there. They submitted an affidavit from their legal expert who opined that the plaintiffs may bring their action in the Philippines. The plaintiffs submitted an affidavit from their legal expert who opined that a Philippine court would sua sponte dismiss the action as barred by the statute of limitations despite the defendants' agreement not to raise the defense in a Philippine court. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum. The plaintiffs appealed and the Appellate Court (225 Conn. App. 725) affirmed the judgment of dismissal, rejecting the plaintiffs' claim that the trial court applied the wrong test to determine whether the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum, namely, that consent may be used as a substitute for jurisdiction. Rather, the Appellate Court found that a proper interpretation of the trial court's decision was that the court used the test enunciated in Schertenleib v. Traum, 589 F.2d 1156 (2^d Cir. 1978), to support its determination that the Philippines was a suitable alternative forum notwithstanding competing expert testimony regarding whether the action was barred in the Philippines by the statute of limitations. The Appellate Court further found that the trial court correctly relied on Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., 215 Conn. 490 (1990), to determine that the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum because the defendants were amenable to service of process in the Philippines and the Philippines was a suitable forum considering the competing expert testimony regarding whether the action was barred in the Philippines by the statute of limitations. Moreover, the trial court left open the possibility that the action could be restored to the docket if a Philippine court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The Appellate Court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in applying Picketts to find that, because the defendants agreed to accept service and litigate in the Philippines, they were amenable to service in the Philippines. The Appellate Court also determined that the trial court necessarily recognized the bipolarity of the parties' competing expert affidavits regarding whether the statute of limitations barred the plaintiffs from bringing the action in the Philippines in determining that the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following question: When a trial court considers whether a foreign jurisdiction is an adequate alternative forum in which to litigate a matter, and the parties present conflicting evidence on whether that foreign jurisdiction's law would allow for jurisdiction over the matter, to what extent must the trial court analyze the foreign jurisdiction's law such that it constitutes a "meaningful assessment of the suitability of the alternative forum" under Picketts?