USVI Public Records

Document text

| | 8] IN RE: ST. CROIX SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS CASES .. ,DBIVISION ,OF*ST; CROIX: KINGSHILL: «| oie = as a. seh oan neath ate per 5 a Target iv ‘ - TERRITORIAL COURT. OF ‘THE VIRGIN ISLANDS - o got. efe ae eat! ) CASES NOS. 606/92; 608/92; ) 611/92; 615/92; 632/92; 633/92; 636/92; 638/92; 644/92; 645/92; 648/92; 649/92; 653/92; 654/92; 657/92; 658/92; 662/92; 665/92; 672/92; 680/92; 685/92; 687/92; 694/92; 697/92; 700/92; 701/92; ee i ee ee ee al THOMAS ALKON, ESQUIRE ‘'2115 Queen Street \|'\Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 | (809) 773-3305 (ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS) LEONARD JAQUES, ESQUIRE The Maritime Asbestosis |Legal Clinic ,Division of the Jaques Admiralty Law firm ,,1570 Penobscot Building Detroit, MI 48226 || (ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS) j || RICHARD E. DALEY, ESQUIRE || Law Offices of Pattie and Daley (1104 Strand Street HF lj H i '|Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 (809) 773-6650 (ATTORNEY FOR COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. & ZAPATA BULK TRANSFER CORP. (IMC) ) i|GERALD T. GRONER, ESQUIRE 52A Company Street, Suite 2 - Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 (809) 773-3660 (ATTORNEY FOR GAF CORP., FLEXITALLIC GASKET, CO., UNION CARBIDE, ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC., A.P. GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC., CERTAINTEED CORPORATION, NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPANY & UNITED STATES GYPSUM COMPANY) 609/92 629/92 634/92 642/92 646/92 650/92 656/92 661/92 666/92 681/92 688/92 699/92 703/92 tN’ ‘RE: “ gAMEN? s’ ASBESTOS. LITIGATION: CASES. CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND,, ORDER stee a o8sth FORUM: ‘NON CONVENTENS. BRITAIN H. BRYANT, ESQUIRE Bryant, White & Associates, P.C. 47 King Street Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 (809) 773-2785 (ATTORNEY FOR HOVIC, AMERADA HESS & ST. CROIX PETROCHEMICAL CORP.) STACY L. WHITE, ESQUIRE Bryant, White & Associates, P.C. 47 King Street Christiansted, St. Croix _ 00820 (809) 773-2785) || (ATTORNEY FOR WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. ) '' EDGAR A. CHRISTENSEN, ESQUIRE Eric Moore Law Offices of R. 544B Company Street |Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 i (809) 773-4150 | (ATTORNEY FOR GENERAL ELECTRIC CORP.) It ' JEAN-ROBERT ALFRED, ESQUIRE :46B-47 King Street 00820 i Christiansted, St. Croix i (809) 773-2156 | (ATTORNEY FOR BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP.) |, TODD NEWMAN ESQUIRE ;Nichols, Newman & Silverlight j 1132 King Street, Suite 204 ' Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 |! (809) 773-3200 || (ATTORNEY FOR ALABAMA DRY DOCK SHIPYARD) { | JOHN R. COON, ESQUIRE ''6 Chandler’s Wharf, Suite 202 Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 (809) 773-3681 (ATTORNEY FOR KEENE CORP. AND GARLOCK INC.) a IN RE: " SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS” LITIGATION ‘CASES. CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 . "FORUM NON. ‘CONVENTENS . GEORGE H. LOGAN, ESQUIRE Logan & Logan 6 Chandler’s Wharf Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 (809) 773-2705 (ATTORNEY FOR OWENS-ILLINOIS, INC. & ACandS, INC.) ii RICHARD H. HUNTER, ESQUIRE | Hunter, Colianni, Cole & Turner 1138 King Street |Christiansted, St. Croix 00820. (809) 773-3535 | (ATTORNEY FOR FIBREBOARD CORP., PITTSBURGH CORNING CORP., PPG i INDUSTRIES, INC.) | MICHAEL C. DUNSTON, ESQUIRE | corporate Place |Royal Dane Mall St. Thomas, V.I. 00802 (809) 776-1049 (ATTORNEY FOR CROWN CORK & SEAL CO.) | JAMES L. HYMES, ESQUIRE 1 P.O. Box 990 St. Thomas, V.I. 00804 ' (809) 776-3470 (ATTORNEY FOR JOHN CRANE, INC.) MARY FAITH CARPENTER, ESQUIRE Law Offices of Dudley & Clark 19 Estate Thomas || Havensight Mall Executive Tower ‘St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802 (809) 776-7474 | (ATTORNEY FOR OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORP. ) JOHN R. REPCHECK, ESQUIRE Sharlock, Repcheck & Mahler 3280 USX Tower 600 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (ATTORNEY FOR ANCHOR PACKING CO.) | MEMORANDUM..OPINZON AND ORDER 2 o.oo ce S| ae IN "RE: SEAMEN S “ASBESTOS LITIGATION. CASES CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 . ‘MEMORANDUM OPINION . AND. ORDER. FORUM: NON’ CONVENEENS “s" 70 te FS PAGE 4 : FREDERICK G. WATTS, ESQUIRE Watts & Streibich 14 Norre Gade |St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 (809) 774-0673 (ATTORNEY FOR FOSTER WHEELER CORP. & PLIBRICO CO.) MARK L. MILLIGAN, ESQUIRE 28A King Street Christiansted, St. Croix 00820 (809) 773-7121 || (ATTORNEY ‘FOR MYSTIC STEAMSHIP CORP... ANNDEP STEAMSHIP CORP., AVON STEAMSHIP CORP., CLTA INC.,° FORMERLY KNOWN AS CLEVELAND TANKERS, INC., MARINE NAVIGATION CO., MARINE TRANSPORT LINES INC., HESS TANKSHIP CO., AMERADA HESS COR?P., ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST BY MERGER TO HESS OIL & CHEMICAL CORP., HESS INC., AND HESS OIL CO., AMERICA FOREIGN STEAMSHIP CORP., ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO AMERICAN EAGLE TANKER CORP., CHEVRON U.S.A. INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO CALIFORNIA TANKERS INC., BLACK SHIPS INC., GULF OIL CO., GULF OIL TRADING CO., GULF TRADING & TRANSPORT, GULF REFINING & MARKETING CO. (GORAM), GULF OIL PRODUCTS CO., VICTORY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP., AS SUCCESSOR BY MERGER TO VICTORY CARRIERS, INC., MONTPELIER TANKER CO., MONTICELLO TANKER CO., MOUNT WASHINGTON TANKER CO., MOUNT VERNON TANKER CO., A.L. BURBANK & CO. LTD., BALDBUTTE SHIPPING CO., CHAS KURZ & CO., INC., KEYSTONE SHIPPING CO., MARGATE SHIPPING CO., KEYSTONE TANKSHIP CORP., SHIPCO 669 INC., UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO PURE OIL COMPANY, AMERICAN MARITIME TRANSPORT INC., ATTRANSCO INC., f/k/a AMERICAN TRADING TRANSPORTATION CO. INC., CONOCO INC., f/k/a CONTINENTAL OIL COMPANY, CROWLEY CARIBBEAN TRANSPORT INC., DELTA STEAMSHIP LINES INC. ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND AS SUCCESSOR IN TRUST TO MISSISSIPPI SHIPPING CO., INTEROCEAN MANAGEMENT CORP., ISBRANDTSEN CO. INC., PUGET IN RE: SEAMEN "8; ASBESTOS LYTIGRTTON CASES. CIVIL NOS. 604- 703/1992 {FORUM NON- CONVENTENS* PAGE 5 ‘~ SOUND TUG & BARGE COMPANY, STEUART TRANSPORTATION CO. SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO STEUART TANKERS CO., TEXAS CITY REFINING INC. ON ITS OWN BEHALF AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST BY MERGER TO TEXAS CITY CORP., TRANSOCEANIC CABLE SHIP CO. INC., WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORP., ARCO MARINE, INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO SINCLAIR REFINING CO., AND RICHFIELD OIL CO., CENTRAL GULF LINES STEAMSHIP, CONNECTICUT TRANSPORT, INC., ON ITS || OWN BEHALF AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO MOHAWK SHIPPING INC., ISCO INC., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO ISTHMIAN LINES INC., AND ISTHMIAN STEAMSHIP CO., LYKES BROS. .STEAMSHIP CO. INC., | MERRIMAC TRANSPORT INC., OMI BULK TRANSPORT, INC. AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO PECOS TRANSPORT INC., OGDEN SEA TRANSPORT INC. AND PLATTE TRANSPORT INC., OMI CHALLENGER TRANSPORT, INC., OMI CORP., ON ITS BEHALF AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO OGDEN MARINE/OMI CORP., a/k/a OGDEN MARINE INC., WABASH TRANSPORT, INC., AND ALBANY RIVER TRANSPORT INC., OMI HUDSON TRANSPORT INC., OMI MISSOURI TRANSPORT INC., OMI ROVER TRANSPORT INC., AS SUCCESSOR IN '| INTEREST TO PENN TANKER CORP., POTOMAC TRANSPORT | INC., PUERTO RICO MARINE MANAGEMENT INC. ON ITS | OWN BEHALF AND AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO PUERTO RICO MARINE OPERATING COMPANY INC., AND RIO GRANDE | TRANSPORT INC.) | DOUGLAS L. CAPDEVILLE, ESQUIRE | 2191 Church Street, Suite 2 |Christiansted, St. Croix 00822 (809) 773-7275 Geena FOR TEXACO, INC., AMERICAN OIL CO. & AMOCO SHIPPING, COASTWISE TRADING CO., AMOCO MARINE (SIC) CONSTRUCTION AGGREGATES CORP., NATALIE TANKSHIP CORPORATION, OVERSEAS MARITIME CORP., OVERSEAS BULKTANK CORP., VALDEZ TANKSHIP CORP., FIRST SHIPMOR ASSOCIATES, INTERCONTINENTAL BULKTANK CORP., VIVIAN TANKSHIP CORP., SEQUOIA TANKERS, INC. & SEA-LAND SERVICES, INC.) PETERSEN, Senior Sitting Judge MEMORANDUM. OPINION. AND. Cs ee sens etna Ala: ate. } edhe Rbk IN’ RE!” SEAMEN’ S ASBESTOS ‘LITIGATION. CASES’ ; CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 HPORUM NON CONVENIENS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (JUNE /@ , 1993) | This Matter is before this Court on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss is Granted. FACTS Complaints have been filed in the Virgin Islands on behalf of living and deceased Merchant Mariners. These complaints ‘allege that these seamen were exposed to asbestos during their |career as sailors on American ships. The Defendants in these cases can be classified in three categories. The first category are the Shipowner Defendants. The second category of Hi |Defendants are manufacturers of boilers, generators and other | machinery installed in these vessels ("Machinery Manufacturers t | Defendants") . The third category of Defendants’ are | manufacturers of asbestos and asbestos containing products used on the ships ("Asbestos Products Defendants"). ! Out of the approximately 100 actions initially filed here, 61 cases were removed to the United States District Court. Presently, these cases are awaiting a Conditional Transfer Order to be further removed to the Multi District Litigation panel where Judge Weiner will decide Plaintiffs’ Motion for Removal and Defendants’ Motion to Sever. Of the 39 cases which remain MEMORANDUM OPINION AND.ORDER | 20 cee Sef ge a tee - IN RE: SEAMEN’ S ASBESTOS: ‘LITIGATION: CASES scipete shar ogre |, CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 ° MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Hi pending in this Court, there are approximately 52 Motions to | Dismiss on the grounds of Forum Non Conveniens. | DISCUSSION 4 RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONFLICTS OF LAWS §84 (1971) | describes forum non conveniens as the sre obs bot whereby "[a] | state will not exercise jurisdiction if it is a seriously iN inconvenient forum for the trial of the action provided that a it | more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff." The || doctrine of forum non conveniens serves to limit misuse of venue ii iby plaintiffs more concerned with "justice blended with | harassment" than with their rights and remedies. Gulf Oil Co. v. i Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947). Under this doctrine, a court can ‘dismiss a case when trial of the action would establish || oppressiveness and vexation to the defendant out of proportion | ‘to plaintiff’s convenience. Id. at 507; Koster v. American '|Lumbermen Mut. Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518 (1947); Lony v. E.T. | DuPont de Nemours and Co., 935 F.2d 604 (3rd Cir. 1991). This doctrine is also properly exercised when the chosen forum is inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal problems. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 510. The law of forum non conveniens does not apply if there is either an absence of jurisdiction or a mistake of venue. Id. at 504. In order to decline jurisdiction it must first exist. As [FORUM NON CONVENIENS’ <7 08. 0500 1 SE URD AUS AES SE a a 4 LIN RE: ‘ SEAMEN’S. ASBESTOS LITIGATION CASES . || CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 - .j:} MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND’ ORDER _ fo MW RE iE “"\\ FORUM NON CONVENIENS’ 0. Ue eee summarized by Professors Wright and Miller, "the doctrine of forum non conveniens does | not come into play unless the court in which the action was brought has both subject Matter and personal jurisdiction and is a (statutorily] proper venue." | C- Wright, A. Miller and E. Cooper, Federal Practice and | Procedure §3828, at 287 (2d ed. 1986). (citations omitted). Consequently, this Court must first decide the issue of | Jurisdiction even if in the exercise of its discretion, || jurisdiction is declined under the doctrine of forum non | conveniens. | Having resolved the jurisdictional issues, this Court must hn now determine whether this Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of | tor non conveniens should be granted. Plaintiffs called this Court’s attention to Zipfel_ v. '| Halliburton Co., 832 F.2d 1477, 1487(9th Cir. 1987) which held | that the doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot be applied to '| Jones Act cases. The arguments against the application of the it | forum non conveniens doctrine in Jones Act cases center around | the specific venue provision of the Jones Act. The Jones Act eincoerenacee the Federal Employer’s Liability Act ("FELA"). See 46 U.S.C. §688(a). Both acts have specific venue provisions. The FELA provides in relevant part: Under this chapter an action may be brought in a district court of the United States, in the district court of the residence of the “IN REY SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS LITIGATION ‘CASES CIVIL NOS. 604- -703/1992_ | || MEMORANDUM OPINION | AND- ORDER - |} FORUM "NON’ ‘CONVENIENS °° defendant, or in which the cause of action arose, or in which the defendant shall be doing business at the time of commencing the action. 45 U.S.C. §56. The Jones Act provides, in pertinent part: | Jurisdiction in [actions under this act] shall be under the court of the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located. | | 46 U.S.C. §688(a). | The Supreme Court in Baltimore and Ohio R.R. Co. v. Kepner, ] | | | 324 U.S.44 (1941) found that FELA’S specific venue provision | | precluded a forum non conveniens analysis. The defendant in | | | Kepner had argued that, although venue was proper under the “FELA‘s special venue provision, the plaintiff was acting in a || vexatious and inequitable manner in maintaining the federal ‘court suit in a distant jurisdiction. Id. The Kepner court lt || observed that "[A] privilege of venue granted by the legislative || boay which created this right of action, cannot be frustrated | for reasons of convenience or expense". Kepner 314 U.S. at 53. The Supreme Court in Gulf Oil subsequently held that the freweening of Kepner applied to all cases involving specific venue provisions. In response to Kepner and Gilbert, Congress drafted 28 IN RE: SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS LITIGATION CASES CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992: -MEMGRANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - FORUM NON CONVENIENS ° : U.S.C.A. 1404(a)’ which provides that: For the convenience of the parties and witnesses in the interest of ‘justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought. In Missouri ex rel. Southern R. Co. v. Mayfield, 340 U.S. 1 (1950), a FELA case, the Supreme Court stated that Kepner did not limit the power of a State to deny accese to its courts to persons seeking Peeovery under FELA if in similar cases the State for reasons‘ of local policy Genies resort to its courts and enforces its policy impartially. In Vargas v. A.H. Bull Steamship Co., 131 A. 2d 39 (N.J. 1957), residents of Puerto Rico brought actions against a New Jersey corporation for injuries sustained in Puerto Rico on || defendants’ ships. Plaintiffs argued that the Jones Act and || FELA precluded a forum non conveniens analysis. The court, ‘referring to the Missouri case, held that the doctrine of forum non conveniens was applicable in state court proceedings of | Jones Act lawsuits. i | Likewise in Anderson v. Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co., 304 N.W. 2d 539 (Mich. 1981), where a Florida seamen brought an ‘The Revision Notes states that "this [rule] was drafted in accordance with the doctrine of forum non conveniens, permitting transfer to a more convenient forum, even though the venue is proper. As an example of the need of such a provision, see (Kepner]"... See Revisor’s Notes to 28 U.S.C.A. 1404(a). IN RE: SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS LITIGATION CASES CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND “ORDER. -- 2 fe Shesanters = FORUM NON CONVENTENS ~ :’ oo Sg gee ' PAGE 11 }action under the Jones Act for injuries that occurred in Florida | ‘while he worked on a dredge owned by a Delaware corporation which did business in Michigan, the plaintiff argued that the doctrine of forum non conveniens would frustrate the federal (| policy of giving Jones Act plaintiffs latitude in their choice i! (of forum. The court noted that plaintiffs in Jones Act or FELA cases have latitude in the "initial" choice of forum. The ecu however, peeeed that the fact that the transfer provision lof 28 U.S.C. §1404' (a) applies to any "civil action" - including ja Jones Act O- FELA case - demonstrates implicit federal \ recognition that a Jones Act or FELA suit, like other types of actions may be initiated in an inappropriate forum. Finding || that the application of forum non conveniens would not i! "disparage" any federal concerns, the court held that the ||doctrine of forum non conveniens was applicable to the Jones act. | In accordance with the pronouncements in both Anderson and | Vargas, the Territorial Court also finds that it is not barred ia applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens to these Jones Act cases. Locally, 5 V.I.C. §4905 codifies the doctrine of forum non conveniens. It provides that: When the Court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum, the court may stay | | IN RE: SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS LITIGATION CASES CIVIL NOS. 604~703/1992 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FORUM NON CONVENIENS or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just. 5 V.1I.C. §4905 It is well settled that the defendant has the burden to establish the elements of forum non conveniens. The Buccaneer Hotel Corporation v. Reliance Internal. Sales Corp., 17 V.I. 249 (Terr. Ct. St.c. 1981). Initially, the defendant must establish that an adequate alternative forum exists as to all defendants. Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 932 F.2d 170 (3rd Cir. 1991). |The requirement of an adequate alternative forum is generally | | satisfied when the defendant is amenable to process in another jurisdiction. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,, 454 U.S. 235 (1981). Only after a defendant establishes that an adequate ;, alternative forum exists will a court review the public and { private factors. Lacey, 932 F.2d at 180. The Supreme Court in {i |Piper noted that the mere availability of an alternative forum will not suffice where the remedy provided is "so clearly | | inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all." ‘Piper, 454 U.S. at 254. Defendants’ submissions to the li jurisdiction of alternative forum renders that forum "available" \ for purposes of a forum non conveniens analysis. Feenerty v. | | Swiftdrill, Inc., 706 F.Supp. 519 (E.D.Tex. 1989); Interpane | Coatings v. Australia and New Zealand, 732 F.Supp. 909 (N.D. Ill. 1990). | | oN RE: SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS LITIGATION CASES || CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 i MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER | FORUM NON CONVENIENS ‘| PAGE 13 [} | In the instant case, the Plaintiffs do not dispute that || they could adequately enforce their rights on The United States mainland. Many of these Defendants have already agreed to | submit to jurisdiction in an alternative forum upon this Court’s |dismissal of the case. An agreement by all Defendants to submit to service of process in another jurisdiction, to waive the assertion of any limitation defenses and to agree to discovery will establish an adequate alternative forum. See Baris v. | |Sulpico Lines,Inc., 932 F.2d 1540 (Sth Cir. 1991). Once the f : | defendant satisfies this burden, it must then show that the | | private and public factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal. |Lacey, 932 F.2d at 180. The Court in Davis v. Vieques Air Link Inc., 22 V.I. 292 | (D.V.I. 1986) outlined the following private and public factors which a court should consider: | (A) Private Factors | (1) amenability of parties to personal | jurisdiction in other forums (2) private interest of litigant | (3) ease of access to sources of proof (4) availability of compulsory process (5) cost of obtaining willing witnesses (6) other practical problems (B) Public Factors (1) administrative difficulties (2) burden on local jurors and community (3) having cases in forum that is familiar with the law which governs the case. IN RE: SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS LITIGATION CASES CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FORUM NON CONVENIENS Gulf Oil, Piper and Lacey also outlined the private and public factors. According to Lacey, the private factors must include the following: Relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process’ for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make a trial of a - case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Lacey, 932 F.2d at 180 and the public interest factors: the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the “local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with law that must govern the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in application of federal laws; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. Id. at 180. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has found that the task of balancing the private and public interest factors is qualitative and not quantative in nature. Lacey, 932 F.2d at 182. The Lacey court stated that: "although the Gulf Oil Court presented its eleven private and public interest factors as rough equals, the Supreme Court surely did not promulgate a mechanical jurisprudence. We believe instead that, depending on the case, some factors are ‘more equal’ than others. If, for example, “IN RE: SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS LITIGATION CASES , CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FORUM NON CONVENIENS the barriers to obtaining access to essential sources of proof in the foreign forum are so severe as to render that forum (practically speaking) an inadequate alternative, that consideration (i.e., “ease of access to sources of proof") cannot be viewed as a run-of-the -mill criterion easily trumped by a countervailing numerical count." Id. In reviewing the private interest factors, this Court must scrutinize the substance of the dispute between the parties to evaluate what proof is required and determine whether the pieces of evidence cited by the parties are critical, or even relevant |! to the Plaintiffs’ cause of action and to any potential defenses to the action. Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517 (1988). In these cases, the amenability of the parties to personal i | jurisdiction in other forums has already been discussed. The j || private interest of the litigant factor involves the plaintiff’s || choice of forum. Normally, the plaintiff’s choice of forum | Should rarely be disturbed. Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508. But where ithe plaintiff does not reside in the chosen forum, the court is { ‘entitled to be far less deferential toward its choice in “conducting a forum non conveniens analysis. Interpane Coatings, 732 F.Supp. at 915. It is uncontested that the Plaintiffs in these cases do not reside in the Virgin Islands. Accordingly, this Court will not consider the Plaintiffs’ choice of forum as controlling. The access to sources of proof, compulsory process, cost IN RE: SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS LITIGATION CASES CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FORUM NON CONVENIENS and practical problems factors weigh heavily in the Defendants’ | favor. There are no known sources of proof in this territory. The Defendants do not maintain any employees and records in the Virgin Islands. Defendants’ assertion that records pertaining to employment of seamen, ownership, operation or maintenance of their vessels, or their purchasing of supplies and equipment for use aboard vessels, are not located in the Virgin Islands have not been refuted by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have not indicated that there are any witnesses in the Virgin Islands. The Defendants have indicated that they will not utilize any local expert witnesses on liability and medical issues. The Court’s compulsory process could not reach any unwilling witnesses. Even if all of the witnesses were willing to travel here to testify, the cost of transportation and housing would be substantial, if not prohibitive. See Syndicate 420 at Lloyd’s London v. Early Am. Ins., 796 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1986). While it may be true that witnesses and other sources of proof in maritime cases tend to be spread throughout the United States and its territories, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that their sources of proof here are closer to the Virgin Islands than the continental United States. As a practical matter, conducting a lawsuit several hundred miles away from witnesses and the sources of proof would amount to needless delay and inordinate expense. See Feenerty, 706 |IN RE: SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS LITIGATION CASES |\CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 ‘MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER /FORUM NON CONVENIENS |PAGE 17 | |F.Supp at 519. Moreover, this Court has an interest in not expending judicial resources where the parties are so remotely ' connected to the Virgin Islands. See e.g., Quintero v. Klaveness Ship Lines, 914 F.2d 717 (5th Cir. 1990). Reviewing the public interest factors throws the Court into actors, the Court must consider the locus of the alleged | ithe merits of the underlying dispute. To evaluate these f£ ‘culpable conduct of a disputed issue and the connection of the | |conduct to the Plaintiffs’ chosen forum. Van Cauwenberghe, 486 | fi \U.S. at 528. In these cases there is insufficient indication ‘las to the locus of the alleged conduct and its relationship to 1 |the Virgin Islands. 1 | Additionally, the administrative considerations, burden of | Jury duty, and local interest in the case also weigh heavily in | the Defendants’ favor. The Virgin Islands Territorial Court || recently expanded both its civil and criminal jurisdiction. 14 t 1 This new jurisdiction will require greater administrative ‘| muscle. These 39 multi-party cases will present a particularly i! \|;onerous administrative burden on this Court at this historical 1} time. Moreover, the trial of complex maritime and products liability asbestos cases would impose an unusually heavy burden on the Virgin Islands as well as on those individuals leaving their home, work and businesses to serve as jurors. Additionally, the timely scheduling and hearing of these | | _IN RE: SEAMEN’S ASBESTOS LITIGATION CASES |CIVIL NOS. 604-703/1992 |MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER | FORUM NON CONVENIENS |PAGE 18 |oftentimes lengthy jury trials with no substantial nexus to this ‘Territory may well have the potential of denying timely or | speedy access to this Court by its residents. As previously || stated, none of the Plaintiffs reside here. The vast majority ' of the over 150 Defendants conduct no business here, are not | licensed to do business here, have no place of business herein. '|\These cases have no factual connection to the Virgin Islands. if | Thus, these cases can hardly be characterized as local | controversies. {| Accordingly, this Court finds that both the public and | private interest factors support dismissing these cases on forum | non conveniens grounds. tee Lpbves. EILEEN R. PETERSEN