# Amicus Curiae Brief — Sinochem Intern. v. Malaysia Intern. Shipping > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0283%3A09 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2007 - **Citation:** 549 U.S. 422 ## Text +o Ne SE RT eee: PR 1D) | BILED oy ai wO¥ 1 3 2006 ! Nagitr No. 06-102 | 2PhiCr OF THe at U.S. Oe me In the Supreme Court of the Cnited States SINOCHEM INTERNATIONAL Co. LTD., PETITIONER v. MALAYSIA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONER PAUL D. CLEMENT Solicitor General Counsel of Record PETER D. KEISLER Assistaut Attorney General EDWIN S. KNEEDLER - Deputy Solicitor General DOUGLAS H. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER Assistant to the Solicitor General MICHAELS. RAAB STEPHANIF R. MARCUS Eric J. FRIGIN Attorneys Departmeut of Justice Washington, D.C. 20580-0001 (202) 514-2217 i } i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a district court must first conclusively establish jurisdiction before dismissing a suit on the ground of forum non conveniens. (1) oer Oe. & ees cae : NS PU Bye a a = oes Futures oe ee ce Sea vaaaere S ine oS fs ony oo vy =, 3 “es 5 ~ me a sh > as > a . y ve ‘ea - - ‘ 7 i. A 7 pal es ‘a “ ba ase > a Ne eh gat a ha ei ha eeay ec PA Yet atest fre AGA 1. eae Dee ait he ~ VES ; , “47 pag tR es 5 of ers Br htt INP tie, ae pet ae j rN Pegs “ ee Meat 28 & Dek i as a pve ? as 4 kA EE: zm é Mimbo ER Ey 7 ge So “4 ; ’ a at, : i haley Ae i ti Cee “ ee het Ae QR, telat eS : ve toed €- ; are wens . eS ee ecaes, a; ae afar try VRANERG +. oy wire Fone * Rae Sete : tA ss es ae ss Niue ee aR eae ne TARATR ive ; . = : : i. Foye hie ae : ; 244, Pi #2 Wetec mnie . ne ae i ee + ed ca pep As z: 4 Saas Se a Sb as » Me ee na Limes . \e : ig e + whe “Wat leek 2. nb Agee Sa afb ine : : OB alle iia we de “ TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Interest of the United States ............... 0. cece eee eee 1 SEE. 0 oor Kb y wdudbiviscdeves WecraWeeususduunbeeen 2 Sr IID o.dine t nccwbsaceuspedpecemsceoen 7 Argument: 9 A federal court may dismiss a case on forum non conveniens grounds without first determining that it has SE ee dacantcdacwceheuesdnsnsk dese eeeen beets ) A. A court does not exceed its authority by dismissing a suit on a threshold, non-mer'ts basis before establishing its jurisdiction ............... 10 B. Forum non conveniens is a threshold, non- merits ground for dismissal ..................4.. 12 C. The doctrine of forum non conveniens does not independently require that a ¢ourt first ascertain its own jurisdiction before dismissing a suit in favor of an alternative forum .................... 17 D. Permitting courts to dismiss on threshold, non- merits grounds, such as forum non conveniens, before adjudicating complex jurisdictional issues promotes Article II] values ...............-.005 25 EE \gh.kne- ek pancdebee' dad hpuke nee bans beam ees 30 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Albion v. YMCA Camp Letts, 171 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. BD. CArdondeet douse news cecunadkeenecnemesacens 21 Altmann v. Republic of Austria, 317 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2002), aff'd, 541 U.S. 677 (2004) ...............00 28 (111) ig Cases—Continued: Page American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 Ge x didabadciabivn bia vsdeuens 2, 3, 12, 13, 19, 26 Arakaki v. Lingle, 423 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2005), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 126 S. Ct. EEE SNARE SE aa re ao ay Sie Ry 29 Arbitration Between Monegasque de Reassurances S.A.M. v. Nak Naftogaz of Ukraine, In re, 311 F.3d 468 Gd Clr. BOGR). nc cc ccvcccccvcess enka dasa 7, 25 Baldwin v. lowa State Traveling Men’s Ass’n, 283 EN i ibd abn bud ebedarcheeduvechseeex 14 Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140 I i nd aia A akan ita ini amanda athe hae pib eee 13, 14 Coté v. Wadel, 796 F.2d 981 (7th Cir. 1986) ............ 20 Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (2003) ....... 23 Dominguez-Cota v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 396 F.3d 650 (Sth Cir. 2005) .......... cc cee eeees 14, 15, 29 Ellis v. Dyson, 421 U.S. 426 (1975) .. 2.2... 2 eee ee eee 11 Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (1990) ......... 21 Follette v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 41 F.3d 1234 (8th SE ped ie ceils Cheeks el Wi gh bined bbe wines 20 Fort Knox Music Inc. v. Baptiste, 257 F.3d 108 (2d SE Se scchsiddendaevancivadsakiouataks souks 20 Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463 (1962) .... 8, 19, 20 Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979) .............. 29 Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 DEE naveeideesecansenescncuminiies 3, 6, 7, 17, 18, 25 Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan, 413 F.3d 45 (D.C. Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1418 (2006) ........... 29 Cases—Continued: Page Insurance Corp. of Ir., Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bausxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (1982) ........... 14 Intec USA, LLC v. Engle, No. 06-1117, 2006 WL 3093644 (7th Cir. Nov. 2, 2006) ............... 7, 21, 25 Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., 108 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 1997) .. 7, 20 Koehring Co. v. Hyde Constr. Co., 324 F.2d 295 (5th VDE a6d cdincentbacudseva Geehbendukbanmanee 20 Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004) .............. 12 Kryvicky v. Scandinavian Airlines Sys., 807 F.2d 514 SR EEE Sikacwscdyncnepsdokipedhevneuees 23, 25 Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 932 F.2d 170 (3d Cir. SEE vadvhckecepelndccicedsipesabonmenussetion 15 Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173 GRE. dds canned sidachaveed bs euslectaen ens 17, 19, 27 Martin v. Stokes, 623 F.2d 469 (6th Cir. 1980) ......... 21 McFarlane v. Esquire Magazine, 74 F.3d 1296 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 809 (1996) ............. 21 Minister Papandreou, In re, 139 F.3d 247 (D.C. Cir. SEED chk cinancdnsnacnsh daacheeeaaeaeees 7, 23, 24 Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U.S. 693 (1973) ....... 11 Myelle v. American Cyanamid Co., 57 F.3d 411 (4th SA BOE. ose nccadbvcceedusdennendioeeneshaena 20 Nelson v. International Paint Co., 716 F.2d 640 (9th Cee: NON . In cases that would ultimately be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds in any event, intrusive jurisdictional discovery subjects foreign governments to substantial burdens that are wholly un- necessary. Just as the United States would want to have similar cases filed against it abroad dismissed promptly, foreign governments seek such treatment here. Like forum non conveniens, other non-merits grounds, e.g., international comity, exhaustion, or the 29 political question doctrine may also prove appropriate - threshold bases of dismissal in cases involving foreign claims or parties. See U.S. Br., Mujica v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., No. 05-56056 (9th Cir. filed Mar. 20, 2006) (urging affirmance of dismissal on international comity grounds without deciding whether the court’s jurisdiction under the ATS extends to claims that arise extraterritorially); Sarei v. Rio Tinto, PLC., 456 F.3d 1069, 1100-1122 (9th Cir. 2006) (Bybee, J., dissenting) (arguing that the court of appeals should have declined to reach jurisdictional issues relating to the scope of the ATS on the ground that the suit should be dismissed without prejudice until the plaintiffs had exhausted rem- edies available in the foreign forum); Hwang Geum Joo v. Japan, 413 F.3d 45, 47-48, 52-53 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (dis- missing on political question grounds an action by Ko- rean, Chinese, and Philippine women alleging that the Japanese army subjected them to sexual slavery during World War II, without resolving whether Japan’s al- leged conduct would be “commercial activity” within the meaning of the FSIA), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 1418 (2006).'* Cf. Tenet, 544 U.S. at 7 n.4 (to “allow discovery ® The District of Columbia Circuit held that the political question doctrine can be addressed before subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA because the political question doctrine is a “jurisdictional limitation[].” Hwang Geum Joo, 413 F.3d at 47 (citation omitted). There is, however, some uncertainty “whether dismissal on political question grounds is jurisdictional or prudential in nature.” Arakaki v. Lingle, 423 F 3d 954, 962 (9th Cir. 2005), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 126 S. Ct. 2859 (2006). See Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996, 1000 (1979) (Powell, J., concurring) (“[T The political-question doctrine rests in part on prudential concerns calling for mutual respect among the three branches of Government.”). Either way, however, treatment of the political question doctrine as a threshold issue for Steel Co. purposes clearly serves the interests that underlie the Stee/ Co. and 30 or other proceedings in order to resolve the jurisdic- tional question” would defeat the purposes of the Totten bar to suits based on secret espionage agreements). The inflexible rule adopted by the court of appeals would force the federal courts to resolve even difficult jurisdictional issues with potentially significant implica- tions for the Nation’s foreign relations before dismissing a case in favor of a more appropriate forum in the coun- try in which the claims arose. Although the court of ap- peals believed itself to be constrained by principles of judicial restraint rooted in Article III, see Pet. App. 26a, its approach undermines, rather than furthers, separa- tion of powers interests that this Court has often ac- knowledged. See, e.g., Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 727 (2004) (noting that “the potential implica- tions for the foreign relations of the United States of recognizing” causes of action for violating international law “should make courts particularly wary of impinging on the discretion of the Legislative and Executive Branches in managing foreign affairs”)."* CONCLUSION The judgment of the court of appeals should be re- versed. Respectfully submitted. Ruhrgas decisions as well as the foreign policy interests of the United States. " The United States does not suggest that litigation of the present case in federal district court would adversely affect our foreign relations. However, the court of appeals’ categorical rule that jurisdic- tional questions must be resolved before a court may abstain from exercising jurisdiction under a discretionary doctrine such as forum non conveniens would deny courts the flexibility necessary to deal with cases that do present foreign affairs concerns. NOVEMBER 2006 31 PAUL D. CLEMENT Solicitor General PETER D. KEISLER Assistant Attorney General EDWIN S. KNEEDLER Deputy Solicitor General DOUGLAS H. HALLWARD-DRIEMEIER Assistant to the Solicitor General MICHAEL 8S. RAAB STEPHANIE R. MARCUS ERIC J. FEIGIN Attorneys --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0283%3A09. Public record. Not legal advice.