Taiwanese Hemophiliacs Infected by US Made HIV-Contaminated Medications
Petition Supreme Court to Proceed in California

Press Release |  Background  |  Plaintiffs' Position  |  Exhibit List

Plaintiffs' Position

The Taiwanese claims have been litigated as part of Multidistrict Litigation 986, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. §1407.  Plaintiffs contend that the MDL court exceeded its authority in dismissing their tort claims  on statute of limitations and forum non conveniens grounds and that after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998), an MDL court’s jurisdiction does not extend to individualized case-specific issues

Since Lexecon, an MDL court’s authority is limited to consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings --- matters for the benefit of the common litigation. Once those common-benefit matters are completed, the MDL court is statutorily mandated to request that a case be remanded for trial. Here, the MDL court actually did state that these cases appeared ready for remand to the transferor courts in California, and the plaintiffs agreed, but defendants requested that the MDL court decide statute of limitations issues first.  Although plaintiffs stated that the statute of limitations and forum non conveniens issues should be decided by the California courts where the cases were originally filed, the MDL court proceeded with dismissing the tort and contract claims anyway.  Plaintiffs contend that this was inconsistent with Lexecon’s ruling.

Taiwanese hemophiliacs have also asked the High Court to clarify anomalous lower federal court decisions where the doctrine of forum non conveniens has been used as a docket-clearing device to rid American courts of claims by foreign plaintiffs against American multinational companies through the broad flexibility granted the lower courts to weigh so-called public and private interest factors.  Plaintiffs have asserted that a transfer to another jurisdiction is not appropriate where the inconvenience is merely shifted but not eliminated. Unless the moving party has  shown that the chosen forum is vexatious and oppressive or inappropriate, dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens is improper. 

Press Release |  Background  |  Plaintiffs' Position  |  Exhibit List