## Facts

- A Brazilian citizen and schoolteacher was treated in Brazil for pulmonary tuberculosis and was prescribed Myambutol, a drug developed and patented in the United States by a U.S. pharmaceutical division.
- A wholly owned Brazilian subsidiary manufactured, marketed, and distributed Myambutol in Brazil under a licensing arrangement.
- After several months of use, the plaintiff developed optic atrophy and became permanently blind.
- The U.S. package insert warned of possible permanent vision loss, while the Portuguese-language warning used in Brazil described only temporary vision loss; the U.S. developer had advised foreign manufacturers to strengthen the warning.
- The plaintiff sued the U.S. company in federal court in Minnesota on strict liability, negligence, failure to warn, warranty, and fraudulent concealment theories, alleging the U.S. company controlled Brazilian manufacture and labeling.
- The district court dismissed on forum non conveniens, conditioned on the defendant submitting to Brazilian jurisdiction, accepting service, waiving certain limitations defenses, and making documents and witnesses available in Brazil.
- After an evidentiary hearing on Brazilian law, the district court found Brazil allowed recovery of certain economic and medical losses (but not punitive damages or pain-and-suffering damages) and provided a meaningful remedy.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing on forum non conveniens after finding Brazil an adequate alternative forum.
2. Whether the district court reasonably balanced the private and public interest factors under the Gulf Oil framework in favor of litigation in Brazil.
3. What weight should be given to a foreign plaintiff’s choice of a U.S. forum in the forum non conveniens analysis.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal.
- Brazil was an adequate alternative forum because the defendant was made amenable to process there through the dismissal conditions and Brazilian law provided a non-illusory remedy.
- The district court permissibly gave reduced deference to the forum choice because the plaintiff was foreign.
- The Gulf Oil private and public interest factors reasonably favored Brazil, including witness location, access to proof, the Brazilian locus of injury and treatment, Brazil’s regulatory interest, and the likelihood that Brazilian law would apply.

## Legal Principles

- Forum non conveniens permits dismissal, even when jurisdiction and venue are proper, if an adequate alternative forum exists and the balance of private and public interests strongly favors the alternative forum.
- An alternative forum is not inadequate merely because its substantive law is less favorable to the plaintiff (including limits on categories of damages), so long as it affords some meaningful remedy.
- A foreign plaintiff’s forum choice receives less deference than a domestic plaintiff’s choice in the forum non conveniens analysis.
- Forum non conveniens dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion; an appellate court will not reweigh factors where the district court made reasonable findings and imposed appropriate protective conditions.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld a conditional forum non conveniens dismissal of a U.S.-filed products-liability suit arising from injury in Brazil, concluding that Brazil was an adequate forum and that convenience, local interest, and applicable law considerations supported trying the case there rather than in Minnesota.


De Melo v. Lederle Lab’ys, 801 F.2d 1058 (8th Cir. 1986)