## Facts

- U.K. resident women alleged they suffered severe, disabling thromboembolic strokes in 1977 after using prescription oral contraceptives (Ovran and Ovranette).
- Plaintiffs sued in New York state court seeking compensatory and punitive damages based on negligence, breach of warranty, strict products liability, and fraud, plus spouses’ loss-of-consortium claims.
- The contraceptives were prescribed, purchased, and ingested in the United Kingdom.
- The drugs were manufactured, tested, labeled, and distributed in the United Kingdom by an English company licensed by the corporate defendants.
- Plaintiffs alleged key decisions to develop, promote, market, and distribute the products without adequate warnings were made in New York by defendants with New York ties.

## Issues

1. Whether New York should decline jurisdiction under CPLR 327 (forum non conveniens) where the plaintiffs, injuries, prescribing, consumption, and much evidence were centered in the United Kingdom.
2. Whether the United Kingdom was an adequate alternative forum despite differences in available causes of action (including the absence of strict products liability) and procedural features (such as jury trial and discovery).

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the trial court and dismissed the actions on forum non conveniens grounds under CPLR 327.
- The dismissal was conditioned on defendants stipulating within 90 days to:
  - waive objections to U.K. jurisdiction and accept U.K. service;
  - cooperate with compulsory process for witnesses and documents (at defendants’ expense);
  - satisfy any U.K. judgment; and
  - waive time-bar defenses if suit was commenced in the United Kingdom within 90 days after service of the stipulation.
- The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion in dismissing under CPLR 327.

## Legal Principles

- Under CPLR 327, New York courts may dismiss an action when substantial justice favors litigation in another forum, considering private and public interest factors, including the location of witnesses and evidence, burdens on New York courts, and the connection of the dispute to the alternative forum.
- The “center of gravity” of a dispute may favor a foreign forum where plaintiffs reside abroad and the alleged injuries, prescribing, consumption, and local distribution occurred abroad.
- An alternative forum may be adequate even if its substantive law and procedures differ from New York’s, so long as it offers a meaningful avenue for relief.
- Forum non conveniens dismissals may be conditioned on defendants’ stipulations (jurisdictional consent, service acceptance, cooperation with evidence, enforceability of judgment, and limitations waivers) to prevent unfair prejudice to plaintiffs.

## Conclusion

The court held that claims by U.K. residents over contraceptives prescribed, obtained, and used in the United Kingdom should be litigated there, not in New York, and that differences in U.K. remedies and procedure did not defeat dismissal where defendants agreed to conditions securing access to the U.K. courts.


Bewers v. Am. Home Prods. Corp., 99 A.D.2d 949, 472 N.Y.S.2d 637 (N.Y. App. Div. 1st Dep’t 1984)