Sinochem International v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp.
Malaysia International Shipping Corporation (MISC) sued Sinochem International in federal district court in Pennsylvania, alleging that MISC had misrepresented the fitness of one of MISC's shipping vessels in the course of an ongoing lawsuit in a chinese admiralty court. Sinochem, a Chinese corporation, argued that the case should be dismissed for two reasons: (1) because the district court did not have personal jurisdiction over Sinochem, and (2) because the chinese admiralty court was a more convenient forum for both parties for resolving the dispute. The district court concluded that it did not have specific personal jurisdiction over Sinochem under the Pennsylvania long-arm statute, but that limited discovery might show that it had personal jurisdiction under the federal long-arm statute. Instead of ordering the discovery, however, the district court dismissed the case because it concluded that the chinese admiralty court was a more convenient forum for both parties. In federal jurisdiction, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to dismiss a case if the convenience of the parties and the court, and the interests of justice, indicate that the action should be tried in another forum.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, ruling that the district court must first conclusively rule on the question of personal jurisdiction before dismissing the suit on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Question Presented:
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a district court must first conclusively determine if it has personal jurisdiction over the defendant before it may dismiss the suit on the ground of forum non conveniens. The court acknowledged that its holding was inconsistent with the interests of judicial economy, recognized that its decision in the case deepened an already existing 2-4 split among the circuits, and invited this Court’s review.
The question presented is:
Whether a district court must first conclusively establish jurisdiction before dismissing a suit on the ground of forum non conveniens?
