Products Liability Law Reporter

A federal district court granted a motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens in a products liability lawsuit against Tesla Inc., arising out of a motor vehicle collision in Japan.

Japanese motorcyclist Yoshihiro Umeda was stopped on the side of an expressway near Tokyo to provide assistance after a crash. Nobuyuki Ito, who was driving his 2016 Tesla Model X on the freeway using his autopilot feature, began to doze off. The Tesla then approached the scene and struck Umeda, killing him. Umeda’s wife and child, who are also Japanese citizens, sued Tesla Inc. in California federal district court, alleging strict liability claims for design defect and failure to warn; negligence; and wrongful death. The defendant moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, arguing that much of the evidence regarding the crash that killed the plaintiffs’ decedent is located in Japan, which has a greater interest in the outcome of the case. According to the defense, public and private interests favor dismissing the district court case in favor of a cause of action in Japan.

Granting the motion, the district court noted that to succeed on a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, a defendant must show that an adequate alternative forum exists and that the balance of private and public interest factors favor dismissal. Although there ordinarily is a strong presumption favoring a plaintiff’s choice of forum, the court said, this may be overcome where private and public factors point toward trial in an alternative forum. Citing case law, the court added that a foreign plaintiff’s choice of forum is afforded some, albeit less, deference than a non-foreign plaintiff’s.

The court noted that although the relevant evidence is located in both California and Japan—which both hold an interest in the case—access to damages evidence and third-party testimony favors dismissal here. The evidence the plaintiffs identified, including the autopilot’s design, is in Tesla’s possession and can be produced for use in a Japanese cause of action, the court said. Moreover, the court said, the plaintiffs may use federal procedural rules to depose Tesla in a Japanese lawsuit based on the facts of this case, which will ensure the plaintiffs can obtain relevant evidence from Tesla and its employees. To the contrary, the court found that it will be difficult if not impossible for Tesla to compel non-parties to produce evidence currently located in Japan if the plaintiffs’ claim proceeds as presently filed. Acknowledging that the plaintiffs had had a legitimate reason to bring their case in California, the state where Tesla is headquartered, the court nevertheless held that the balance of private interests regarding evidence favors dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims based on forum non conveniens.

Consequently, the court granted the defendant’s motion subject to the requirements that: (1) Tesla accepts service of process in a Japanese action; (2) a Japanese judgment obtained by the plaintiffs be enforceable against Tesla in Japan and California; (3) Tesla waives the right to assert a limitations defense for five years; (4) Tesla makes available witnesses for deposition and trial, as well as producing requested documents pursuant to a valid protective order; and (5) the plaintiffs be permitted to use Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) in deposing Tesla.

Citation: Umeda v. Tesla Inc., 2020 WL 5653496 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2020).