Seventh Circuit Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 5, Issue 1 Fall 2009 CONTENTS Masthead iii About the SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW iv Civil Procedure Should They Stay or Should They Go: Applying the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine to Foreign Plaintiffs Injured Abroad in Abad v. Bayer Corporation Leah B. Moon 1 Constitutional Law Raising the Bar: How the Seventh Circuit Nearly Struck Down the Diploma Privilege Under the Dormant Commerce Clause Paul C. Huddle 38 Criminal Law Finding Intent Without Mens Rea: A Modified Categorical Approach to Sentencing Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines Amanda J. Schackart 71 Employment Discrimination True to the Fable?: Examining the Appropriate Reach of Cat’s Paw Liability Emily M. Kepner 108 i First Amendment Prisoners and Public Employees: Bridges to a New Future in Prisoners’ Free Speech Retaliation Claims Matthew D. Rose 159 Labor Law The Seventh Circuit Giveth, and the District of Columbia Circuit Taketh Away: The National Labor Relations Board’s Authority to Act Under Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act Tyler T. Murphy 221 Prisoners’ Rights Dobbey v. Illinois Department of Corrections: A Small Piece of a Growing Policy Puzzle Ashley M. Belich 272 ii SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 5, Issue 1 Fall 2009 Chicago-Kent College of Law Illinois Institute of Technology 565 West Adams Street, Chicago, Illinois 60661 Hal R. Morris Professor Paul Forster Executive Editor – Teaching Assistant Editorial Staff Ashley M. Belich Leah B. Moon Paul C. Huddle Tyler T. Murphy Emily M. Kepner Matthew D. Rose Amanda J. Schackart © 2009 Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology. iii SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 5, Issue 1 Fall 2009 ABOUT THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Purpose The SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW is a semiannual, online journal dedicated to the analysis of recent opinions published by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW seeks to keep the legal community abreast of developments and trends within the Seventh Circuit and their impact on contemporary jurisprudence. The articles appearing within the SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW are written and edited by Chicago-Kent College of Law students enrolled in the SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Honors Seminar. The SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Honors Seminar In this seminar, students author, edit, and publish the SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW. The REVIEW is entirely student written and edited. During each semester, students identify cases recently decided by the Seventh Circuit to be included in the REVIEW, prepare initial drafts of case comments or case notes based on in-depth analysis of the identified cases and background research, edit these drafts, prepare final, publishable articles, integrate the individual articles into the online journal, and "defend" their case analysis at a semester-end roundtable. Each seminar student is an editor of the REVIEW and responsible for extensive editing of other articles. Substantial assistance is provided by the seminar teaching assistant, who acts as the executive editor. iv The areas of case law that will be covered in each journal issue will vary, depending on those areas of law represented in the court's recently published opinions, and may include: • Americans with Disabilities Act • antitrust • bankruptcy • civil procedure • civil rights • constitutional law • copyright • corporations • criminal law and procedure • environmental • ERISA • employment law • evidence • immigration • insurance • products liability • public welfare • securities This is an honors seminar. To enroll, students must meet one of the following criteria: (1) cumulative GPA in previous legal writing courses of 3.5 and class rank at the time of registration within top 50% of class, (2) recommendation of Legal Writing 1 and 2 professor and/or Legal Writing 4 professor, (3) Law Review membership, (4) Moot Court Honor Society membership, or (5) approval of the course instructor. v SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 5, Issue 1 Fall 2009 SHOULD THEY STAY OR SHOULD THEY GO: APPLYING THE FORUM NON CONVENIENS DOCTRINE TO FOREIGN PLAINTIFFS INJURED ABROAD IN ABAD V. BAYER CORPORATION ∗ LEAH B. MOON Cite as: Leah B. Moon, Comment, Should They Stay or Should They Go: Applying the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine to Foreign Plaintiffs Injured Abroad in Abad v. Bayer Corporation, 5 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 1 (2009), http://www.kentlaw.edu/ 7cr/v5-1/moon.pdf. INTRODUCTION As globalization continues to make it easier for U.S. companies to export their products abroad, a defective product can cause life- threatening harm to consumers throughout the world. For example, when U.S. drug companies exported defective blood clotting products to hemophiliacs worldwide, reports of hemophiliacs infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (“HIV”) arose in France, Japan, Iran, Canada, and Portugal, among other countries.1 When the product of a U.S. company injures a consumer outside of U.S. borders, the foreign plaintiff2 must choose the forum in which to bring suit. Historically, U.S. courts have been an attractive forum for foreign plaintiffs, ∗J.D. candidate, May 2010, Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology; B.A., University of Pennsylvania. 1 Aids Scandal Around the World, BBC NEWS, Aug. 9, 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1482021.stm. 2 For purposes of this discussion, a “foreign plaintiff” refers to a party who is not a U.S. citizen or resident. 1 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 5, Issue 1 Fall 2009 leading some to sue U.S. companies in a U.S. court rather than in the plaintiff’s home country. 3 The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits U.S. courts to dismiss the foreign plaintiff’s case under certain circumstances.4 Even if the plaintiff has satisfied jurisdiction and venue requirements, this common law doctrine permits trial courts to dismiss a suit over which it would normally have jurisdiction if both the parties’ convenience and the ends of justice are best served through dismissal.5 The Supreme Court of the United States has, through Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert6 and Piper Aircraft Company v. Reyno, 7 announced how the doctrine should be applied, as well as the level of deference that should be given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. As in other circuit courts of appeal, in the Seventh Circuit the nature of the doctrine of forum non conveniens and the lenient standard of review together confer district courts with nearly free reign to determine whether to apply the doctrine. As Justice Scalia has noted, “[t]he discretionary nature of the doctrine, combined with the multifariousness of the factors relevant to its application, make uniformity and predictability of outcome almost impossible.”8 This unbridled discretion is starkly illustrated in Abad v. Bayer Corporation (“Abad II”), in which the Seventh Circuit upheld dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds of two cases involving Argentinean plaintiffs who brought product liability claims against U.S. companies in federal district courts.9 3 Helen E. Mardirosian, Developments in the Law: Federal Jurisdiction and Forum Selection, 37 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1643, 1667 (2004). 4 Id. at 1643. 5 See Alan Reed, To Be or Not to Be: The Forum Non Conveniens Performance Acted Out on Anglo-American Courtroom Stages, 29 GA. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 31, 36 (2000). This note does not discuss the analysis of whether the adjudications of whether the foreign forum is adequate or available, and assumes that the foreign plaintiff can satisfy both jurisdiction and venue rules in the U.S. forum. 6 330 U.S. 501 (1947). 7 454 U.S. 235 (1981). 8 Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 455 (1994) (citations omitted). 9 563 F.3d 663, 673 (7th Cir. 2009). 2 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 5, Issue 1 Fall 2009 An analysis of the district court and Seventh Circuit’s opinions in Abad II highlights the inconsistent approaches that district courts use when applying the private and public interest factors set forth in Gilbert. Part I of this note summarizes the development of the forum non conveniens doctrine in the Supreme Court of the United States. Part II discusses the district court and Seventh Circuit opinions in Abad II. Finally, Part III proposes modest solutions that the Seventh Circuit should adopt to ensure that district courts apply the Gilbert factors consistently and make forum non conveniens decisions more uniform and predictable. I. BACKGROUND A. Forum Non Conveniens Generally The Fifth Circuit has noted aptly that just as “a moth is drawn to the light, so is a litigant drawn to the United States.”10 Foreign plaintiffs that can satisfy U.S. jurisdiction and venue rules have a plethora of incentives to bring suit in the United States.11 In contrast to other jurisdictions, U.S. courts offer plaintiffs the potential availability of class actions, strict liability as a cause of action, and a broader scope of evidence through more extensive discovery rules.12 Furthermore, litigation in the United States can be more affordable for plaintiffs because of the availability of contingent fee arrangements and the absence of monetary penalties in the form of attorney’s fees on the losing party.13 Even if the case does not reach trial, having the case proceed through a U.S. court can influence claim settlement because U.S. cases tend to settle for higher amounts than in European countries.14 Most importantly, U.S. forums offer foreign plaintiffs in 10 Teng v. Skaarup Shipping Corp., 743 F.2d 1140, 1146 (5th Cir. 1984). 11 Mardirosian, supra note 3, at 1667. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Russell J. Weintraub, International Litigation and Forum Non Conveniens, 29 TEX. INT’L L.J. 321, 323 (1994). 3 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 5, Issue 1 Fall 2009 civil suits the right to trial by jury, which raises the possibility of larger damage awards.15 Of course, a foreign plaintiff who opts to bring suit in a U.S.