Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
58. Should the court grant the traveler's motion for relief from judgment?
After the foreign court dismissed the traveler's suit, the traveler filed a motion for judgment relief for the federal district court's dismissal for forum non conveniens. The traveler did not explain their failure to previously argue the unavailability of the foreign court when the forum non conveniens motion was pending.
A traveler filed suit in a federal district court against a foreign airline and a United States-based travel agency following an airplane crash. The federal district court dismissed the case under forum non conveniens doctrine. The dismissal was made without prejudice to allow the traveler to re-file suit in a foreign court. In the briefing and hearing on the motion for forum non conveniens dismissal, the traveler did not argue the unavailability of a foreign court, despite knowing that the foreign court would not hear the case because of an international convention that precluded the foreign court from entertaining the lawsuit.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
(i) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(ii) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under FRCP 59(b);
(iii) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party;
(iv) the judgment is void;
(v) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; it is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated, or applying it prospectively is no longer equitable; AND/OR
(vi) any other reason that justifies relief.
For grounds (i), (ii), and (iii), the motion must be made within a reasonable time not to exceed one year; for the other grounds, the motion must be made within a reasonable time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court having jurisdiction over a particular case may use its discretion to decline to exercise that jurisdiction if the court concludes that the action could be more appropriately tried in some other jurisdiction.
C is correct. The court should deny the traveler's motion because of the failure to raise the argument of the unavailability of foreign courts when he originally invoked forum non conveniens.
A motion for relief from judgment requires some basis for granting it as outlined in FRCP 60(b). Here, there are no circumstances giving rise to proper relief from judgment because the traveler knew that there were no foreign courts available all along and no extenuating reasons exist as to why he withheld that information, such as mistake or newly discovered evidence. His failure to raise the issue thus will preclude the court from granting the traveler relief from judgment.
A is incorrect. The district court was under no obligation to predict whether a foreign court could adjudicate the traveler's case, nor would this type of mistake necessarily satisfy the reasons for relief from judgment as outlined in FRCP 60(b).
B is incorrect. On the contrary, the traveler deliberately withheld information regarding the foreign court's inability to hear the traveler's case and failed to make this critical argument at the appropriate time. Based on these facts, there is no indication that there are sufficiently extraordinary circumstances (or any extraordinary circumstances) that would warrant relief.
D is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. The court should deny the motion, but not because of the interest in preserving the finality of the lower court's judgment. Although it is a policy of appellate courts to preserve the finality of trial court judgments, this interest is not necessarily dispositive. If the traveler had raised the argument previously or presented additional evidence supporting the need for relief from judgment, such as excusable neglect, this policy would have been outweighed by those circumstances. Nevertheless, no such evidence existed here, and by withholding the argument originally, the traveler's motion should be denied.