Opposition%20to%20M%20-%20Dismiss

Opposition%20to%20M%20-%20Dismiss - Case 2:06-cv-00815-MJP...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
LOYAS OPPOSITION TO FNC MOTION -1- STAFNE LAW FIRM 17207 155 th Avenue N.E. Arlington, Washington 98223 (360) 403-8700 (206) 467-0701 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE GILLIAN B. LOYA, as Personal Representative of the Estate of RICARDO LOYA, deceased, and as Litigation Guardian Ad Litem for Isabella and Gabriella Loya, the surviving minor child of the decedent, RICARDO D. LOYA, Plaintiffs, v. STARWOOD HOTEL AND RESORTS, et. al. Defendants. Case No. C06-0815 MJP LOYAS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS RAINTREE’ AND STARWOOD’S JOINT MOTION FOR DISMISSAL BASED ON FORUM NON CONVENIENS I. THE ISSUES BEFORE THIS COURT The Starwood and Raintree defendants argue at pages 1 and 2 of their motion for forum non conveniens (FNC) dismissal (FNC motion) that the Supreme Court's recent decision in Sinochem International Co., Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp ., 549 U.S. ______, 127 S.Ct.1184, 75 USLW 4126 (2007) applies to this case. Specifically, Starwood and Raintree contend this Court should follow the Supreme Court's holding that "…where subject-matter or Case 2:06-cv-00815-MJP Document 134 Filed 04/06/07 Page 1 of 25
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
LOYAS OPPOSITION TO FNC MOTION -2- STAFNE LAW FIRM 17207 155 th Avenue N.E. Arlington, Washington 98223 (360) 403-8700 (206) 467-0701 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 personal jurisdiction is difficult to determine, and forum non conveniens considerations weigh heavily in favor of dismissal, the court properly takes the less burdensome course.” In this case, none of the Starwood defendants has timely contested Washington's general or specific jurisdiction over it. Raintree now admits Washington has jurisdiction over the Loyas' claims against Raintree. See Raintree's withdrawal of motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Thus Sinochem's holding that this court does not have to decide difficult jurisdictional issues before dismissing a case on grounds of forum non conveniens is not pertinent to this FNC motion because 1.) the jurisdictional issues involved here are not and never were "difficult"; and 2.) the jurisdictional issues against Starwood and Raintree have been resolved. The issues the Loyas contend this Court must resolve pursuant to defendants FNC motion are 1.) whether a forum non conveniens defense can be sustained where American plaintiffs are suing American defendants pursuant to the special venue provisions of the Death on the High Seas Act, 46 USC 761, et seq,, and Washington's Timeshare Act, RCW Chapter 36.12?; and 2.) if a forum non conveniens defense is available notwithstanding the special venue provisions of DOSHA and the Washington Timeshare Act "whether . . defendants have made a clear showing of facts which . . . establish such oppression and vexation of a defendant as to be out of proportion to plaintiff's convenience. ..?" II. THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 03/08/2011 for the course MGF 3620 taught by Professor Branson during the Fall '07 term at FIU.

Page1 / 25

Opposition%20to%20M%20-%20Dismiss - Case 2:06-cv-00815-MJP...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online