Opinion
NO. 5-17-0011
12-08-2017
SHAWN McIVER, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., and ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS, Defendants (American Medical Systems, Inc., Defendant-Petitioner).
NOTICE
Decision filed 12/08/17. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Peti ion for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County.
No. 12-L-235
Honorable Vincent J. Lopinot, Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE OVERSTREET delivered the judgment of the court.
Presiding Justice Barberis and Justice Welch concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: The circuit court abused its discretion in denying the petitioner's motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens.
¶ 2 The defendant-petitioner, American Medical Systems, Inc. (AMS), appeals from the circuit court's order denying its motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
¶ 3 BACKGROUND
¶ 4 In May 2012, in the circuit court of St. Clair County, 75 plaintiffs from 23 states filed a joint multi-count product-liability suit alleging that the defendants, AMS and Endo Pharmaceuticals, manufactured and sold defective pelvic mesh products that caused severely adverse health effects following surgical implantation. The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants had concealed their knowledge that their products posed unreasonably dangerous risks. The plaintiffs asserted that venue was proper in St. Clair County because the defendants had promoted and sold their products there and because plaintiff Shawn McIver had her pelvic mesh implanted at Memorial Hospital in Belleville. The record indicates that as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Endo Pharmaceuticals, AMS was the only defendant served in the case.
¶ 5 In June 2012, AMS filed a motion to sever the plaintiffs' causes of action, maintaining that they had been improperly joined. Contemporaneous with the filing of its motion to sever, AMS also filed a motion to dismiss or transfer on the basis of wrongful venue. In its motion to dismiss or transfer, noting that the plaintiffs had not alleged that either defendant was a resident of St. Clair County, AMS asserted that if the circuit court granted its motion to sever, all plaintiffs other than McIver would lack a proper legal or factual basis upon which to establish venue in St. Clair County.
¶ 6 In an August 2012 e-mail correspondence, counsel for AMS confirmed with plaintiffs' counsel that the plaintiffs had agreed to await the circuit court's ruling on AMS's motion to sever and motion to dismiss or transfer on the basis of wrongful venue "before requiring that AMS answer or otherwise respond" to the plaintiffs' complaint.
AMS also agreed that within 21 days after the circuit court ruled on AMS's motions, AMS would answer or otherwise respond "subject to the parties' agreed modification of this schedule."
¶ 7 In March 2013, the circuit court entered an order denying AMS's motion to sever and motion to dismiss or transfer on the basis of wrongful venue. Apparently referencing plaintiff McIver, the order stated that AMS would have to defend a case in St. Clair County regardless of whether the motion to sever were granted. The order was prepared by plaintiffs' counsel and did not include a deadline for the filing of AMS's answer.
¶ 8 In the years that followed, 73 of the 75 plaintiffs in the case reached settlement agreements with AMS. The record indicates that during the course of the settlement negotiations, a 2015 trial setting was vacated by agreement of the parties. Ultimately, the only plaintiffs who did not settle their claims were Paula and Earl Conway of Essex, Maryland.
¶ 9 In May 2016, the circuit court set the Conways' cause for a July 2017 trial and directed the parties to confer and submit a case-management order within 30 days. The record indicates that AMS subsequently advised that it intended to challenge the Conways' choice of forum.
¶ 10 In July 2016, AMS filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. Citing Fennell v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 2012 IL 113812, AMS argued that "[g]iven the current makeup of this case," the public and private interest factors relevant to the consideration of its motion strongly favored dismissing the Conways' action so that it could be "re-filed in the more convenient forum of Baltimore County, Maryland." AMS
noted, among other things, that Paula's mesh had been implanted at Greater Baltimore Medical Center in Baltimore County and that her treating physicians and medical records were located in Baltimore County. AMS further stated that all additional fact witnesses, such as Paula's friends, family members, and coworkers, "also would be expected to live in or around Baltimore County." In support of its motion to dismiss, AMS attached St. Clair County's 2014 caseload statistics from the annual report of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts and Baltimore County's 2013 through 2015 caseload statistics from the Maryland judiciary's 2015 annual statistical abstract. The record indicates that AMS also submitted its first set of interrogatories to the Conways.
¶ 11 In August 2016, the Conways responded to AMS's first set of interrogatories. Their responses included the names of numerous witnesses but did not include their addresses. In a subsequent e-mail, AMS asked the Conways to provide the present or last known addresses of their witnesses. On September 16, 2016, the Conways complied with the request and provided the "available information" that they had. They also indicated that they anticipated having "a role in representing the witnesses should depositions occur."
¶ 12 On September 29, 2016, as a supplement in support of its forum non conveniens motion, AMS submitted the witness information that the Conways had provided and an affidavit stating that nearly all sources of proof in the Conway case were located in Baltimore County, that no sources of proof were located in St. Clair County, and that the legal proceedings would be "much more convenient" if they were held in Baltimore County rather than St. Clair County. The Conways' witness information indicated that of
the 26 potential witnesses or entities whose addresses the Conways had disclosed, 1 was from Abingdon, Virginia; 2 were from York, Pennsylvania; 20 were from Baltimore or Baltimore County, Maryland; 2 were from the adjoining county of Hartford, Maryland; and 1 was from the adjoining county of Anne Arundel, Maryland.
¶ 13 In November 2016, the Conways filed an oppositional response to AMS's forum non conveniens motion. The Conways argued, among other things, that their chosen forum should be given deference and that AMS's motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens was untimely given that the case had been in the circuit court of St. Clair County for over four years. Noting that the court had previously determined that venue was proper in St. Clair County, the Conways maintained that "[n]othing ha[d] occurred to change that calculus." The Conways indicated that they would be designating experts in the matter in January 2017.
¶ 14 In December 2016, noting that the case was not the same as it was before 73 of the 75 plaintiffs had settled, AMS filed a reply arguing that its motion to dismiss should be granted given that the Conways' cause of action had "absolutely no connection" to St. Clair County. Further asserting that the Conways had "shown little interest in prosecuting their claims since March of 2013," AMS noted that its motion to dismiss was timely filed pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 187(a) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013). Without elaboration, the circuit court subsequently denied AMS's motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. In January 2017, AMS filed a petition for leave to appeal pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 306(a)(2) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016), which we granted in February.
¶ 15 DISCUSSION
¶ 16 "Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine founded in considerations of fundamental fairness and the sensible and effective administration of justice." Langenhorst v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 219 Ill. 2d 430, 441 (2006). The doctrine permits the circuit court to decline jurisdiction over a case when trial in another forum would better serve the ends of justice. Id. If jurisdiction is so declined, the case must be dismissed because the circuit court lacks the authority to transfer it to the court of another state. Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 13. "The dismissal is conditioned on the plaintiff timely filing the action in the other forum; and the defendant accepting service of process from that court, and waiving any available statute of limitations defense." Id.; see also Ill. S. Ct. R. 187(c)(2) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013).
¶ 17 A circuit court is afforded considerable discretion when ruling on a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, and its decision is reviewed for an abuse of that discretion. McClain v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. Co., 121 Ill. 2d 278, 288 (1988). A circuit court abuses its discretion where no reasonable person would take its adopted view. In re Marriage of Schneider, 214 Ill. 2d 152, 173 (2005).
¶ 18 "Each forum non conveniens case must be considered as unique on its facts." Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443. "Every request for transfer based upon forum non conveniens must be decided pursuant to an 'individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.' " Gridley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 217 Ill. 2d 158, 168 (2005) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
¶ 19 In the present case, AMS argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying its forum non conveniens motion. The Conways maintain that the motion was untimely and that the court's judgment should be affirmed. We will first address the timeliness issue.
¶ 20 Timeliness
¶ 21 Pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 187(a), "[a] motion to dismiss or transfer the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens must be filed by a party not later than 90 days after the last day allowed for the filing of that party's answer." Ill. S. Ct. R. 187(a) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013). The 90-day time limit set forth in Rule 187(a) is unambiguous, and the rule "clearly indicates" when the time limit for filing a forum non conveniens motion is triggered. Miller v. Consolidated R. Corp., 173 Ill. 2d 252, 259 (1996).
¶ 22 Here, when the cause was set for a July 2017 trial in May 2016, the circuit court directed the parties to confer for case-management purposes but did not fix a deadline for the filing of AMS's answer to the plaintiffs' complaint. Accordingly, AMS's July 2016 motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens was timely filed under Rule 187(a). See id.; Chochorowski v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 376 Ill. App. 3d 167, 171-72 (2007).
¶ 23 The Conways nevertheless maintain that technical compliance with Rule 187(a) notwithstanding, AMS should have filed its forum non conveniens motion much earlier than July 2016. Emphasizing that their case had been in the circuit court for over four years when the motion was filed, the Conways assert that there was no reasonable basis for AMS's failure to file the motion sooner than it did. Suggesting that AMS could have
brought the motion "at any time" after the plaintiffs' complaint was filed in May 2012, the Conways accuse AMS of engaging in "gamesmanship" on the eve of an "imminent" trial. Further suggesting that it would be prejudicial to require them to recommence their action in Maryland, the Conways argue that the circuit court rightfully denied AMS's "last-minute request" for a dismissal and transfer. We reject these contentions, however, and conclude that Rule 187(a) aside, AMS's motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens was brought with "reasonable and appropriate promptness." Fifth & Walnut, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc., 76 F. Supp. 64, 67 (S.D.N.Y. 1948). We further conclude that the Conways are unable to establish prejudice and cannot be heard to complain about the lengthy delay that preceded the motion's filing.
¶ 24 Suggesting that in its August 2012 e-mail to plaintiffs' counsel, AMS had unequivocally agreed to file an answer within 21 days of the circuit court's rulings on its motion to sever and motion to dismiss or transfer on the basis of wrongful venue, the Conways first argue that AMS should not have been permitted to "ignore its agreement" and benefit from the circuit court's "oversight" in failing to set a filing deadline in its March 2013 order denying those motions. The Conways observe that had AMS filed an answer in 2013 "as contemplated by the parties," its 2016 forum non conveniens motion would have been untimely under Rule 187(a)'s 90-day time limit.
¶ 25 We initially note that AMS's 2012 "agreement" as to the filing of its answer was tentative. AMS's e-mail specifically indicated that the time by which AMS would be required to file its answer was "subject to the parties' agreed modification." We further note that although the Conways suggest that AMS would have been required to file its
answer in 2013 but for the circuit court's "oversight" in failing to set a deadline in its March 2013 order, the plaintiffs prepared the order disposing of the motions and chose not to include a deadline. Thus, to the extent that there was an "oversight," it was not the court's. Additionally, after the court entered the March 2013 order, the plaintiffs spent the following years participating in settlement negotiations, during which a 2015 trial setting was vacated by agreement of the parties. At no point did the plaintiffs seek an order requiring AMS to file an answer by a specific date, and the record indicates that AMS has yet to file one. Under the circumstances, we do not believe that the parties "contemplated" that AMS would file an answer in 2013 and that, even assuming that AMS had unequivocally agreed to do so, the plaintiffs collectively waived their right to enforce that agreement through conduct inconsistent with an intent to enforce it. See City of Chicago v. Michigan Beach Housing Cooperative, 242 Ill. App. 3d 636, 649 (1993). The Conways' argument also presumes that the circuit court would not have granted AMS an extension to file its answer pending the outcome of the parties' settlement negotiations. See Miller, 173 Ill. 2d at 260 (noting that the circuit court has broad discretion in setting and extending the deadline for the filing of an answer). Furthermore, even assuming that AMS had filed an answer in 2013, we would still conclude that its forum non conveniens motion was timely filed under the circumstances.
¶ 26 "The very nature of motions brought under the doctrine of forum non conveniens militates against the application of waiver." Walker v. Iowa Marine Repair Corp., 132 Ill. App. 3d 621, 627 (1985). Additionally, a defendant should not be placed in the "inequitable" position of having to choose between filing a forum non conveniens motion
when the basis therefore may not be clear or "deferring filing at the risk of having the motion denied because of delay." Kemner v. Monsanto Co., 112 Ill. 2d 223, 241-42 (1986); see also Ingenium Technologies Corp. v. Beaver Aerospace & Defense, Inc., 122 F. Supp. 3d 683, 689 (E.D. Mich. 2015) (noting that although "there is no strict time limit for bringing such a motion" in federal court, "it is generally accepted that a defendant must assert a forum non conveniens motion 'within a reasonable time after the facts or circumstances which serve as the basis for the motion have developed and become known' " (quoting In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, 821 F.2d 1147, 1165 (5th Cir. 1987))). Accordingly, Rule 187(a) should not be read as an absolute prohibition against filing a forum non conveniens motion beyond the time limit prescribed. In re Marriage of Clark, 232 Ill. App. 3d 342, 350 (1992). Where the basis for the motion does not become evident until after the time allowed by the rule has expired, for instance, good cause exists to extend the deadline for the filing of the motion. See id.; see also Eads v. Consolidated R. Corp., 365 Ill. App. 3d 19, 29 (2006) (noting that "Illinois law provides that a challenge to forum may be renewed where the circumstances affecting any of the forum non conveniens factors have changed").
¶ 27 Here, when the present action commenced in May 2012, 75 plaintiffs from 23 states were involved. Of the 75 plaintiffs, there were 12 from Texas, 8 from Tennessee, 6 from Arizona, 6 from Washington, 6 from North Carolina, 5 from South Carolina, 4 from California, 4 from Oklahoma, 4 from Georgia, 2 from Maryland, 2 from Massachusetts, 2 from Iowa, 2 from Indiana, 2 from Michigan, 2 from Mississippi, 1 from Ohio, 1 from Florida, 1 from New York, 1 from Pennsylvania, 1 from Colorado, 1 from Minnesota, 1
from Alabama, and 1 from Illinois. Had AMS been required to file its forum non conveniens motion in 2013, as the Conways suggest, it could not have possibly alleged in good faith which of the many potential forums might ultimately prove more convenient than Illinois. By the time the cause was set for trial three years later, however, the Conways were the only remaining plaintiffs. At that point, AMS had a clear and valid basis for seeking a transfer to Maryland that had not previously existed. Simply stated, the present case was not the same case that it was before 73 of the 75 plaintiffs had agreed to dismiss their claims, and AMS's motion was not ripe for filing until the parties' settlement negotiations had concluded. The Conways' assertion that there was no reasonable basis for AMS's failure to file its forum non conveniens motion sooner than it did ignores the import of the parties' settlement negotiations.
¶ 28 Moreover, we discern no prejudice to the Conways. Although their case had been in the circuit court for over four years when AMS filed its motion in July 2016, little, if any, discovery had been completed. When AMS filed its motion, it proceeded under the belief that most of the Conways' witnesses would be located in the Baltimore County area, but that belief was not confirmed until the Conways provided their witnesses' addresses in September 2016. Additionally, the only matters that the circuit court had previously ruled upon were AMS's motion to sever and motion to dismiss or transfer on the basis of wrongful venue, both of which were denied long before the conclusion of the settlement negotiations and neither of which were specific to the Conways' cause of action. Further, when the case was set for trial in May 2016, the circuit court directed the parties to submit a case-management order and set a distant trial date of July 2017.
Thereafter, the Conways advised that they had not intended on designating their expert witnesses until January 2017. Under the circumstances, we disagree with the Conways' characterization of AMS's July 2016 motion as a "last-minute request" made on the eve of an "imminent trial."
¶ 29 On appeal, the Conways emphasize that their case has been pending in the circuit court for years, and they complain that a transfer to Baltimore County could cause further delay. When plaintiffs choose to file suit in a foreign forum, however, they take the calculated risk that their case might be dismissed on the basis of forum non conveniens. See Eads, 365 Ill. App. 3d at 26; see also McClain, 121 Ill. 2d at 292 (noting that "forum non conveniens motions have been granted by reviewing courts even after an action has been tried to verdict"). Furthermore, when numerous plaintiffs elect to combine their causes of action, they collectively risk that the resolution of their individual claims might be delayed should extensive settlement negotiations arise. Settlement agreements are encouraged (Gilbert v. Sycamore Municipal Hospital, 156 Ill. 2d 511, 528 (1993)), and in such instances, we do not believe that a nonsettling plaintiff should be heard to complain about delays that are partly and fairly attributable to the plaintiffs as a whole (see McClain, 121 Ill. 2d at 292 (recognizing that the delay in the filing of the defendant's forum non conveniens motion was not entirely attributable to the defendant); Barnes v. Southern Ry. Co., 116 Ill. 2d 236, 249-50 (1987) (same); Brown v. Tenney, 155 Ill. App. 3d 605, 610 (1987) (holding that the defendant could not argue that the plaintiff's amended complaint was untimely filed where the delay in filing the complaint was due to the parties' extensive settlement negotiations); Halas v. Executor of the Estate of Halas,
112 Ill. App. 3d 940, 949 (1983) (recognizing that to hold that the delay occasioned by the parties' settlement negotiations was fatal to the petitioner's action "would have, in many cases, the ultimate effect of discouraging negotiations")). We accordingly reject the Conways' intimation that we should view the lengthy delay between the filing of the plaintiffs' complaint and the filing of AMS's forum non conveniens motion as presumptively prejudicial or unfair. To the extent that the present case languished in the circuit court, it did so without objection and with the plaintiffs' implicit consent.
¶ 30 On appeal, the Conways also suggest that the consolidated case of Bell v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 106 Ill. 2d 135 (1985), which preceded and prompted the adoption of Rule 187(a) (see Ill. S. Ct. R. 187, Committee Comments (adopted Feb. 21, 1986)), supports their argument that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying AMS's request for a transfer. We find, however, that Bell is further supportive of our disposition.
¶ 31 In Bell, years after the plaintiffs in two separate causes of action had filed their complaints and the parties had proceeded with discovery, the defendant railroad filed motions to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, which the circuit court denied. Bell, 106 Ill. 2d at 138-40. On appeal to the supreme court, the issue was whether the railroad's lengthy delay in filing the motions had resulted in a waiver of the railroad's right to object to the plaintiffs' choice of forum. Id. at 141. While declining to adopt "a waiver rule, per se," the Bell court nevertheless concluded that the railroad's motions were untimely because "equity aids the vigilant," and the railroad had "slept on its rights." Id. at 146-47. While recognizing that by necessity, "some discovery must be had"
before a defendant can determine whether filing a forum non conveniens motion would be proper, the Bell court noted that the railroad's motions had been filed long after the parties had commenced discovery. Id. The court further noted that in one of the cases, the railroad's motion had been filed after the parties had engaged in extensive pretrial preparations, including the taking of depositions. Id. at 147. The Bell court indicated that in both instances, the circuit court's denial of the railroad's motions was justified given the railroad's failure to act with " 'reasonable and appropriate promptness.' " Id. at 145 (quoting Fifth & Walnut, Inc., 76 F. Supp. at 67); see also Laird v. Illinois Central Gulf R.R. Co., 208 Ill. App. 3d 51, 64 (1991) (concluding that the defendant's forum non conveniens motion was untimely where the defendant possessed the necessary information "long before the motion was filed," and the motion was filed after "extensive discovery had been undertaken").
¶ 32 Here, unlike the defendant in Bell, AMS did not sleep on its rights. AMS's forum non conveniens motion was filed at the earliest practicable opportunity with the limited information that it had. Additionally, as previously indicated, we discern no prejudice to the Conways given that the motion was brought before any pretrial preparations had been completed or any rulings relevant to the merits of their claim had been made. See Walker, 132 Ill. App. 3d at 629; see also Besco v. Henslee, Monek & Henslee, 297 Ill. App. 3d 778, 783 (1998). As noted, when AMS's motion was filed, little, if any, discovery had been completed.
¶ 33 We recognize that there are "outside limits" to how long a defendant can wait before filing a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens and that the
reasonableness of the delay and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff are relevant considerations. Laird, 208 Ill. App. 3d at 63. It would be inequitable, for example, to allow a defendant to " 'take depositions of plaintiffs, permit plaintiffs to examine witnesses on deposition, have plaintiffs incur pre-trial expenses *** and prepare for trial and finally after many months have passed, raise an objection to the forum for the first time.' " Bell, 106 Ill. 2d at 145 (quoting Fifth & Walnut, Inc., 76 F. Supp. at 67). Here, however, AMS's motion was timely filed under Rule 187(a); the motion was otherwise brought with reasonable and appropriate promptness; and the Conways are unable to establish prejudice. We accordingly reject the Conways' argument that the circuit court properly dismissed AMS's July 2016 motion on the grounds that it was untimely.
¶ 34 Merits
¶ 35 In determining whether to grant or deny a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, the circuit court must balance private interest factors affecting the litigants and public interest factors affecting the administration of the courts. Dawdy v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 207 Ill. 2d 167, 172 (2003). The private interest factors include the convenience of the parties; the relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence; the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of unwilling witnesses; the cost of obtaining the attendance of willing witnesses; the possibility of viewing the premises, if appropriate; and all other practical considerations that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Id. The public interest factors include the interest in having local controversies decided locally; the administrative difficulties caused when litigation is handled in congested venues instead
of being handled at its origin; and the unfairness of imposing jury duty upon residents of a county with no connection to the litigation. Id. at 173. "These factors are relevant considerations for both interstate and intrastate forum non conveniens analysis." Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 444.
¶ 36 The defendant has the burden of showing that the balance of the relevant public and private interest factors strongly favor a dismissal and transfer (id.), and the circuit court must evaluate the totality of the circumstances when determining whether that burden has been met (Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 17). The relevant factors are not weighed against each other, and no single factor should be emphasized. Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 443-44. The proper focus of an interstate forum non conveniens analysis is "whether the case is being litigated in the most appropriate state." Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 13.
¶ 37 "An additional consideration under the forum non conveniens doctrine is deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum." Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 173. It is generally assumed that the plaintiff's choice of forum is convenient, and unless the balance of the relevant factors strongly favor a dismissal, the plaintiff's choice should rarely be disturbed. Id. "However, when the plaintiff is foreign to the chosen forum and when the action giving rise to the litigation did not occur in the chosen forum, the plaintiff's choice of forum is accorded less deference." Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 18.
¶ 38 In the present case, it is undisputed that the Conways' choice of forum is entitled to less deference. Because the Conways are residents of Baltimore County and the action giving rise to their litigation did not occur in St. Clair County, the assumption that St.
Clair County is convenient " 'is much less reasonable.' " Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 173 (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 256 (1981)). While we acknowledge that the Conways' chosen forum is still entitled to some deference (Langenhorst, 219 Ill. 2d at 448), we nevertheless conclude that the circuit court erred to the extent it determined that the balance of the public and private interest factors did not weigh in favor of a transfer from St. Clair County to Baltimore County.
¶ 39 Considering the private interest factors, we begin with the convenience of the parties. The record indicates that AMS is a Delaware corporation with its principal base of business in Minnesota. The Conways reside in Baltimore County, where Paula's mesh was implanted, but AMS cannot argue that St. Clair County is inconvenient for the Conways. Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 27. This factor is essentially neutral, as neither county is necessarily convenient nor inconvenient for either party.
¶ 40 The relative ease of access to the sources of testimonial, documentary, and real evidence strongly favors a transfer to Baltimore County. The record indicates that Paula's medical records were provided during discovery "on disc," and we acknowledge that "in the modern age," the location of documentary evidence has become less significant because such evidence can be "easily copied and sent." Id. ¶ 36. However, nearly all of the Conways' disclosed witnesses are located in or around Baltimore County, and there are no witnesses of record from Illinois. By the same token, the availability of compulsory process and the cost of obtaining the attendance of willing witnesses are also factors that weigh heavily in favor of the convenience of Baltimore County. See id. ¶ 34.
¶ 41 The possibility of viewing the premises, if appropriate, is another convenience factor favoring a dismissal and transfer. Although AMS concedes that viewing the premises in not likely to be relevant in the present case, this factor concerns the possibility of a viewing rather than the necessity of one. Id. ¶ 37. We further note that "the appropriateness or necessity of viewing the premises is a decision left within the discretion of the circuit court at trial." Id.
¶ 42 We next consider all other practical considerations that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. AMS's national counsel has office locations in Chicago, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington, D.C., to name a few. AMS also has local counsel from Madison County. The plaintiffs' complaint was submitted by counsel from Virginia, but the Conways have local counsel from Madison County as well. The record does not indicate which attorneys will be representing the parties at trial. In any event, where the parties' attorneys are located is afforded little consideration. Id. ¶ 40.
¶ 43 Turning to the public interest factors, the interest in having local controversies decided locally and the unfairness of imposing jury duty upon residents of a county with no connection to the litigation both weigh in favor of a transfer to Baltimore County. On appeal, the Conways argue that since their action involves a product that was promoted and sold in Illinois as well as Maryland, the citizens of Illinois would have an interest in deciding the controversy. While this might be true, that interest is not the test used to determine whether Illinois is the appropriate forum. See id. ¶ 44. "The public interest requires that causes which are without significant factual connections to particular forums be dismissed in favor of, or transferred to, convenient forums." Id. Moreover, a
generalized interest in the nature of a controversy does not justify burdening the taxpayers of a foreign state with the costs of deciding a case that is otherwise unrelated to their state. Id. ¶¶ 44-45; Laverty v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 404 Ill. App. 3d 534, 539 (2010). Baltimore County also has a local interest in the litigation, given that Paula's mesh was implanted at a Baltimore County hospital. Dawdy, 207 Ill. 2d at 183; Vinson v. Allstate, 144 Ill. 2d 306, 313 (1991).
¶ 44 Lastly, "[a]lthough the court congestion factor, by itself, is relatively insignificant," it is nevertheless "appropriate to consider the congested conditions of the docket in the plaintiff's chosen forum." Fennell, 2012 IL 113812, ¶ 43. On the record before us, however, the administrative difficulties caused when a case is handled in a congested venue as opposed to its venue of origin is not a factor that we will take into account. The civil docket caseload statistics submitted by AMS show that in 2014, there were 10,926 cases disposed of in St. Clair County and 10,892 new cases filed. In Baltimore County, there were 11,123 case terminations in 2014 and 9964 filings of new or reopened cases. AMS maintains that these numbers show that Baltimore County is "slightly less congested" than St. Clair County, while the Conways argue that the statistics fail to demonstrate a significant difference between the two counties' caseloads. Although the raw numbers seemingly indicate that the counties' court systems are similarly situated, they "fail to address the relative size of each judicial system and the speed of disposition in each forum." Id. Accordingly, this is not a factor that we will consider in our analysis. See id.
¶ 45 In conclusion, the weight of the public and private interest factors greatly favors Baltimore County as the more convenient forum for the Conways' cause of action. For forum non conveniens purposes, St. Clair County has no relevant or significant factual connections to the case, and its only connection is that both parties have counsel in nearby Madison County. Furthermore, the Conways' choice of forum is afforded less deference given that they are not residents of Illinois, and their cause of action did not arise here.
¶ 46 CONCLUSION
¶ 47 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the circuit court's judgment denying AMS's motion to transfer on the basis of forum non conveniens. The cause is hereby remanded with directions that it be dismissed pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 187(c)(2) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013).
¶ 48 Reversed and remanded.