Franchisor 101: Greener Grass in a Foreign Forum

Lewitt Hackman

A federal court in Maryland denied Marriott International, Inc.’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ action based on forum non conveniens.

Plaintiffs sued Marriott and the JW Marriott hotel franchisee in India for premises liability, negligence, and loss of spousal consortium based on a plaintiff’s fall and resulting injury at a Mumbai hotel.

Marriott and its franchisee moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, among other grounds. Marriott argued the case should be heard in India where the fall occurred. Federal courts may dismiss a case under forum non conveniens if a case should be litigated in a foreign nation when the alternative forum is (1) available; (2) adequate; and (3) more convenient in light of public and private interests. The defendant bears the burden of showing dismissal is appropriate.

Marriott contended India was an available and adequate forum, and Marriott would make itself available in India to resolve the matter. Marriott provided an affidavit from an attorney in India, who explained the plaintiffs could maintain their claims in India as if they were citizens of India. The plaintiffs argued that while India may be an available forum, it was inadequate because it could take up to 15 or 20 years to reach resolution. While the court took “seriously” plaintiffs’ concern of timing, the court assumed without deciding that the forum is adequate, and proceeded to weigh the public and private interests.

The court determined that while certain private interests may favor India as the forum, other private factors and public interests favored keeping the action in the United States. The court noted that plaintiffs’ choice of forum is entitled to great deference because plaintiffs had their home in the forum. The expense plaintiffs would likely incur for travel to India favored keeping the case in the United States. And any claimed difficulty relating to the court deciding foreign law was unpersuasive. The court noted prior cases finding federal courts are “quite capable” of deciding foreign law issues. The court concluded that Marriott did not overcome the substantial deference afforded to plaintiffs’ choice of forum.

Franchisors often seek to have actions litigated in other cities, states, or countries in which alleged harm or injury occurred. Before taking such action, franchisors should consult franchise counsel to evaluate the merits to reduce protracted litigation and associated fees and costs.

Sant v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., No. GJH-22-1036, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31395 (D. Md. Feb. 24, 2023)

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Lewitt Hackman | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Lewitt Hackman
Contact
more
less

Lewitt Hackman on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide