PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JIALI TANG; YONGDE LIU, in their
own capacities, and ex rel. X. L.,
a minor; PING MU; XIA CHANG, in
their own capacities, and ex rel.
Y. M., a minor; DEDONG MA;
HONGXIU LU, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. L. M., a
minor; RUIJIE LIU; SONGXIA ZHU, in
their own capacities, and ex rel.
Y. L., a minor; XIANGHONG LIU;
JIAOYAN ZHU, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. S. L., a
minor; SHUYONG YAO; FENGQIONG
BAO, in their own capacities, and No. 10-1487
ex rel. Y. Y., a minor; LIHONG
MENG; FENG ZHAO, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. F. Z., a
minor; XIAOPING CHANG; YOUJIAN
MA, in their own capacities, and
ex rel. L. M., a minor; YANMIAO
CAO; ZHAODI LIN, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. Z. C., a
minor; HONG LIU; JUNJIE LIU, in
their own capacities, and ex rel. J.
L., a minor; YAJUN HE; BING
WANG, in their own capacities, and
ex rel. Y. W., a minor;
2 TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL
CHUNNIAN WANG, in his own
capacity, and ex rel. Y. W., a
minor; CHUANG WANG; RUI ZHANG,
in their own capacities, and ex rel.
Y. W., a minor; QIGUO SHU;
MEIHONG REN, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. R. S., a
minor; ZHAOXIA XING; XINQIANG
HUANG, in their own capacities,
and ex rel. H. H., a minor; WEN
CHEN; XIANG HE, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. G. C., a
minor; QI CHEN; LI XUE, in their
own capacities, and ex rel. J. C., a
minor; XIANWEI HONG; DANDAN
HUANG, in their own capacities,
and ex rel. Z. H., a minor; JINRONG
ZHU; JIALONG ZHANG, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. J.Z., a
minor; XINJUN WANG; FEI LI, in
their own capacities, and ex rel.
H. W., a minor; XIAOFEI HE;
RUIZHONG TIAN, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. F. T., a
minor; HAIBO ZHAO; XINGPING JIA,
in their own capacities, and ex rel.
C. Z., a minor; JUN PENG; LI FANG,
in their own capacities, and ex rel.
Q. P., a minor;
TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL 3
XIAOLI DU; JIANG LI, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. M. L., a
minor; XIN LIU; YAN ZHU, in their
own capacities, and ex rel. W. L.,
a minor; GANG MENG; HAIYAN
WANG, in their own capacities, and
ex rel. Y. M., a minor; ZHAOXIA JI;
JIAYING NIU, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. Z. N., a
minor; MEI CHENG; WEI CHEN, in
their own capacities, and ex rel.
Q. C., a minor; DONGRONG LI;
GUOAN ZHANG, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. B. Z., a
minor; DONGYAN YU; WEI QIN, in
their own capacities, and ex rel. Z.
Q., a minor; ZHENGYA SHAO; YI LI,
in their own capacities, and ex rel.
H. S., a minor; JIE GAO;
CHUNCHENG XU, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. G. X., a
minor; MING HU; YANLING YAN, in
their own capacities, and ex rel. Z.
Y., a minor; GUANGLU LIU; LIMEI
CHEN, in their own capacities, and
ex rel. S. L., a minor; HONG LIU;
4 TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL
YONG FEI, in their own capacities,
and ex rel. C. F., a minor; RUIDA
WANG; XIAOYU LI, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. C. W., a
minor; ERJIAN AN; CHANGJING
HUANGFU, in their own capacities,
and ex rel. Y. A., a minor; YUAN
ZHANG; HAITAO NAN, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. Y. N., a
minor; XIAOFEI XIE; QIQI XIONG, in
their own capacities, and ex rel.
Y. X., a minor; DONGWEI ZHOU;
YAN ZHENG, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. X. Z., a
minor; WEI ZHAO; CHANGYU LIU,
in their own capacities, and ex rel.
Y. W., a minor; XING WEN; YAN
YUE, in their own capacities, and
ex rel. Y. W., a minor; RENYIN
FAN; YAPING HU, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. T. F., a
minor; JIANHUA CHEN; NING XIA, in
their own capacities, and ex rel. J.
C., a minor;
TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL 5
YUAN WEN, in his own capacity,
and ex rel. T. W., a minor;
XINGZHI ZHU; FANGKAI YANG, in
their own capacities, and ex rel. Z.
Y., a minor; PING DU, in her own
capacity, and ex rel. X. X., a
minor; WEI ZHANG, in his own
capacity, and ex rel. K. Z., a
minor; LIN CHEN; JIE YOU, in their
own capacities, and ex rel. J. Y., a
minor; YINGHAO ZHANG, in his
own capacity, and ex rel. Y. Z., a
minor; JINGHAI YANG; JIANGLI
WANG, in their own capacities, and
ex rel. H. Y., a minor; DIANJUN
WANG; JUNLI SUN, in their own
capacities, and ex rel. X. W., a
minor; YUNPENG GE; QI HOU, in
their own capacities, and ex rel.
Y. G., a minor,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL,
INCORPORATED; SYNUTRA,
INCORPORATED, a/k/a American St.
George Biological Technology
Corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge.
(8:09-cv-00088-DKC)
6 TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL
Argued: March 22, 2011
Decided: September 6, 2011
Before KING, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Wynn wrote the opin-
ion, in which Judge King and Judge Gregory concurred.
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Paul George Gaston, LAW OFFICES OF PAUL
G. GASTON, Washington, D.C., for Appellants. James
Arden, SIDLEY & AUSTIN, LLP, New York, New York, for
Appellees. ON BRIEF: Paul J. Zidlicky, SIDLEY & AUS-
TIN, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Sara J. Gourley, SIDLEY &
AUSTIN, LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Eamon P. Joyce, SIDLEY
& AUSTIN, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellees.
OPINION
WYNN, Circuit Judge:
"A forum non conveniens dismissal must be based on the
finding that, when weighed against plaintiff’s choice of
forum, the relevant public and private interests strongly favor
a specific, adequate, and available alternative forum."1 Plain-
tiffs in this case are citizens and residents of China who allege
that they were injured by melamine-contaminated infant for-
mula in China. The contaminated products were manufactured
1
Kontoulas v. A.H. Robins Co., 745 F.2d 312, 315 (4th Cir. 1984) (cita-
tion omitted).
TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL 7
and distributed exclusively in China by, among others, Sheng
Yuan Nutritional Food Company ("Sheng Yuan")—a Chinese
subsidiary of Synutra International, Incorporated and Synutra,
Incorporated (collectively "Synutra"). Because Synutra’s prin-
cipal place of business is in Maryland, Plaintiffs brought this
action in Maryland seeking to recover damages for their
alleged injuries that occurred in China. China, however, is an
available, adequate, and more convenient forum to redress
Plaintiffs’ grievances; accordingly, we affirm the district
court’s forum non conveniens dismissal.
I.
In 2008, Chinese officials learned of widespread reports
that infants in China had died or become severely ill after
consuming infant formula. An investigation showed that
infant formula manufactured by twenty-two Chinese compa-
nies was contaminated with melamine, a chemical which is
unfit for human consumption and may afflict the kidneys.2
One of these companies was Sheng Yuan, a subsidiary of
Synutra. According to Synutra’s 2009 financial statement to
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission,
Sheng Yuan produced, marketed and sold infant formula
products in China,
[d]irectly or through its wholly owned subsidiary,
Synutra, Inc[orporated], an Illinois corporation
("Synutra Illinois"), Synutra International, Inc. (col-
lectively with its subsidiaries, "the Company" or
"Synutra") owns all or majority of the equity inter-
ests of the companies in the People’s Republic of
China ("China" or "PRC") that are principally
engaged in the production, marketing and distribu-
tion of dairy based nutritional products under the
2
Plaintiffs’ complaint, and media reports included in the record, suggest
that melamine was used to boost the infant formula’s protein content.
8 TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL
Company’s own brands in China. The Company is a
leader in sales of infant formula products in China.
The Company produces, markets and sells nutri-
tional products under "Sheng Yuan," or "Synutra,"
its master brand, and several sub-brands, including
"Super," "U-Smart," and "U-Strong."
On September 16, 2008, Synutra issued a press release in
China recalling the "U-Smart" line of formula products. In the
press release, Synutra acknowledged that batches of its U-
Smart products were found to be contaminated, and the com-
pany expressed regret for harm caused to Chinese children.
Synutra believed "that the melamine contamination resulted
from tainted milk supplies provided by third-party suppliers
in the Hebei and Inner Mongolia regions of China."
In December 2008, the Chinese government established a
fund to compensate the children and families affected by con-
taminated infant formula ("the Fund"). The Chinese govern-
ment executed contracts with the twenty-two responsible
infant formula manufacturers, which agreed to contribute to
the Fund. The Chinese government agreed to administer the
Fund by making distributions, through China Life Insurance
Company Limited, to affected children and their families.
In March 2009, a government official estimated that "over
95% of 300,000 infants with different levels of suffering from
baby formula ha[d] accepted compensation" from the Fund,
thus waiving their rights to sue. But some of the victims
elected to bring civil lawsuits in China’s courts in lieu of
accepting compensation from the Fund. The record shows that
some of those lawsuits were accepted3 by provincial or
municipal-level Chinese courts. On March 2, 2009, Shen
3
Under Chinese civil procedure, a plaintiff may initiate an action by fil-
ing a motion of complaint, which the court is required either to accept or
reject within seven days of filing.
TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL 9
Deyong, Executive Vice President of the Supreme People’s
Court, the highest court in the People’s Republic of China,
officially announced that the court "is prepared and ready to
hear these cases according to law at any time."
On the other hand, the record also shows evidence that
some of the contaminated infant formula lawsuits were sty-
mied by China’s courts and government officials. For
instance, in 2008, the United States’ Congressional-Executive
Commission on China4 released a report stating:
Chinese authorities are preventing citizens with
grievances related to tainted milk products from
using the judicial system to seek redress. They have
invoked the importance of "maintaining social stabil-
ity" in seeking to thwart efforts to organize large
groups of angry citizens through collective lawsuits.
By early October, more than 100 lawyers nation-
wide had joined forces to offer free legal aid to the
parents of babies who had fallen sick from tainted
milk. Many of the lawyers have been pressured to
withdraw from the group. . . . Judicial authorities in
some provinces have told volunteer lawyers that liti-
gation could lead to "social unrest."
Staff of Cong.-Exec. Comm’n on China, 110th Cong., Annual
Report 164 (2008). Additionally, consistent with the Commis-
sion’s findings, affidavits from at least two Chinese lawyers
stated that Chinese courts continued to delay contaminated
infant formula cases even after the Supreme People’s Court’s
4
The Congressional-Executive Commission on China was created by
Congress in 2000 as a bipartite body, consisting of federal legislators and
executive-branch officials, whose purpose in part is to "monitor the devel-
opment of the rule of law in the People’s Republic of China . . . ." 22
U.S.C. § 6912(c); see also id. §§ 6911 (establishing the Commission),
6913 (prescribing the Commission’s membership).
10 TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL
March 2, 2009 announcement. These lawyers acknowledged,
however, that at least two cases were eventually accepted.5
One of the lawyers also asserted that he was pressured by
government officials to withdraw from contaminated infant
formula litigation.
On January 15, 2009, in lieu of accepting compensation
under the Fund, Plaintiffs in this matter chose to institute this
action against Synutra in the United States District Court in
Maryland, rather than in China. They alleged various causes
of action based on Synutra’s role in producing, marketing,
and distributing contaminated U-Smart products. Synutra
moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of, inter alia,
forum non conveniens, contending that China is a more con-
venient forum for Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs opposed Syn-
utra’s motion, and both parties submitted affidavits from
Chinese lawyers and law professors familiar with the contam-
inated infant formula incident and related lawsuits.
The district court, in ruling on the motion, found China to
be an available forum based on the affidavit of Synutra’s
President, Weiguo Zhang, who affirmed that Synutra would
not contest service of process if Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in
China. Tang v. Synutra Int’l, Inc., No. DKC 09-0088, 2010
WL 1375373, *5 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2010). Next, the district
court found that China is an adequate forum, despite conflict-
ing evidence regarding the willingness of China’s courts to
hear and resolve contaminated formula cases. The district
court also deemed China adequate because "[e]ven if the Chi-
nese courts were not open to Plaintiffs, another remedy is
undisputedly available to them, namely, the [Fund]." Id. at
*10. Finally, the district court weighed the public and private
interests and concluded that they "overwhelmingly" favored
China as the more appropriate forum for this dispute. Id. at
5
A third affiant suggests that these two cases were only accepted
because they involved small damage claims against Sanlu Group, another
manufacturer that was previously declared bankrupt.
TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL 11
*12. According to the district court, "The District of Maryland
has comparatively little interest in a case involving the extent
of liability, if any, of an international holding company and its
subsidiary for injuries inflicted abroad . . . ." Id. at *13. The
district court therefore dismissed the complaint under the doc-
trine of forum non conveniens. Plaintiffs appeal.
II.
A forum non conveniens dismissal is reviewable for an
abuse of discretion, and the district court’s "decision deserves
substantial deference." Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S.
235, 257 (1981). However, the Supreme Court has established
an analytical framework which, as applied by this Court, must
guide the district court’s analysis. A district court must deter-
mine whether the alternative forum is: 1) available; 2) ade-
quate; and 3) more convenient in light of the public and
private interests involved. Id. at 241 (citing Koster v. Lumber-
mens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (1947)); Gulf Oil Corp. v.
Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947)). The moving party bears the
burden of showing that an adequate alternative forum exists.
Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 731 (4th Cir. 2010); Fid.
Bank PLC v. N. Fox Shipping N.V., 242 F. App’x 84, 90 (4th
Cir. 2007) (unpublished).
Availability will ordinarily "be satisfied when the defen-
dant is ‘amenable to process’ in the other jurisdiction." Piper
Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 255 n.22 (quoting Gilbert, 330 U.S. at
506-07). "A foreign forum is adequate when ‘(1) all parties
can come within that forum’s jurisdiction, and (2) the parties
will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly, even
though they may not enjoy the same benefits as they might
receive in an American court.’" N. Fox Shipping, 242 F.
App’x at 90 (quoting Mercier v. Sheraton Int’l, Inc., 935 F.2d
419, 424 (1st Cir. 1991)). "In rare circumstances, however,
where the remedy offered by the other forum is clearly unsat-
isfactory, the other forum may not be an adequate alternative,
12 TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL
and the initial requirement may not be satisfied." Piper Air-
craft, 455 U.S. at 254 n.22.
If the alternative forum is both available and adequate, the
district court must weigh the public and private interest fac-
tors.
The factors pertaining to the private interests of the
litigants include[ ] the "relative ease of access to
sources of proof; availability of compulsory process
for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining
attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view
of premises, if view would be appropriate to the
action; and all other practical problems that make
trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive."
Gilbert, 330 U.S., at 508, 67 S.Ct., at 843. The pub-
lic factors bearing on the question include[ ] the
administrative difficulties flowing from court con-
gestion; the "local interest in having localized con-
troversies decided at home"; the interest in having
the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home
with the law that must govern the action; the avoid-
ance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or
in the application of foreign law; and the unfairness
of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury
duty. Id., at 509, 67 S.Ct., at 843.
Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 241 n.6. A district court may abuse
its discretion if "‘it fail[ed] to consider a material factor or
clearly err[ed] in evaluating the factors before it, or [did] not
hold the defendants to their burden of persuasion on all ele-
ments of the forum non conveniens analysis.’" Galustian, 591
F.3d at 731 (alteration in original) (quoting El-Fadl v. Cent.
Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 677 (D.C. Cir. 1996), abrogated
on other grounds by, Samantar v. Yousuf, 130 S. Ct. 2278
(2010)). With these principles in mind, we now turn to the
parties’ arguments.
TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL 13
III.
First, Plaintiffs argue that the district court abused its dis-
cretion by relieving Synutra of its burden to show an adequate
alternative forum. We disagree.
In support of their argument that the district court misallo-
cated the burden of proof, Plaintiffs extract the following
from the district court’s decision:
While courts have strictly required defendants to
demonstrate that the alternative forum offers "at least
some relief," they "have not always required that
defendants do much to refute allegations of partiality
and inefficiency in the alternative forum." Leon v.
Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305, 1311 (11th Cir.
2001). Many courts have presumed the adequacy of
the alternative forum and placed at least the burden
of production on the plaintiff to establish otherwise.
See Leon, 251 F.3d at 1312; Vaz Borralho v. Keydril
Co., 696 F.2d 379, 393-94 (5th Cir. 1983), overruled
on other grounds by In re Air Crash Disaster Near
New Orleans, 821 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1987). These
courts, moreover, have rejected generalized and con-
clusory allegations by plaintiffs as being insufficient
to carry this burden, requiring instead that an eviden-
tiary showing be made in support of claims that the
alternative forum is inadequate. See El-Fadl v. Cent.
Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 678 (D.C. Cir. 1996);
Mercier v. Sheraton Int’l Inc., 981 F.2d 1345, 1351
(1st Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2346 (1993).
As the United States Court of Appeals for the Elev-
enth Circuit explained in Leon, 251 F.3d at 1312,
"defendants have the ultimate burden of persuasion,
but only where plaintiff has substantiated his allega-
tions of serious corruption or delay."
Tang, 2010 WL 1375373, at *4. Viewing this excerpt in isola-
tion, Plaintiffs argue that the district court improperly relieved
14 TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL
Synutra of its burden to show an adequate alternative forum.
But a review of the rest of the district court’s decision shows
that the district court properly placed the burden of proof on
Synutra at all stages of the forum non conveniens analysis.
Indeed, the district court properly allocated the burden of
proof. First regarding availability, the district court stated that
"availability is established where the defendant shows that it
is ‘amenable to process’ in the alternative forum." Id. at *5
(emphasis added) (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 254
n.22). Synutra satisfied that burden with affidavits stating that
Plaintiffs were not barred by a statute of limitations and that
Synutra would not contest service of process in China. Id. at
*5-6. As to adequacy, the district court considered the parties’
conflicting affidavits and concluded that "[u]nder the low
threshold established by the Supreme Court in Piper Aircraft
Co., Defendants have met their burden of showing that China
is an adequate forum." Id. at *10 (emphasis added). Finally,
the district court concluded that "Defendants have convinc-
ingly met their burden of demonstrating that the private and
public interest factors at issue favor the Chinese forum and
disfavor litigation in the District of Maryland." Id. at *13.
Because the district court properly placed the burden of
proof on Synutra at all stages of its analysis, we find no abuse
of discretion.
IV.
Next, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in evaluat-
ing China’s adequacy as an alternative forum. Specifically,
Plaintiffs contend that the district court elevated Synutra’s
"general" evidence that China has an adequate judicial system
over Plaintiffs’ "specific" evidence that Chinese courts and
officials discouraged contaminated formula cases. We find no
merit to this argument.
Initially, we observe that Plaintiffs do not dispute their eli-
gibility to receive compensation from the Fund in China.
TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL 15
Thus, Plaintiffs are essentially arguing that China is an inade-
quate forum because they cannot obtain in China a judicial
remedy in lieu of the Fund. But, the forum non conveniens
doctrine does not limit adequate alternative remedies to judi-
cial ones. See Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137,
1144-45 (9th Cir. 2001). Indeed, the reach of the doctrine
extends to nonjudicial alternative remedies such as the Fund
which was established to specifically redress the grievances of
contaminated formula victims. See id. Additionally, the Fund
is not an inadequate remedy merely because Plaintiffs "‘may
not enjoy the same benefits as they might receive in an Amer-
ican court.’" N. Fox Shipping, 242 F. App’x at 90 (quoting
Mercier, 935 F.2d at 424); see also Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1143
("The district court was not required to ask whether plaintiffs
could bring this lawsuit in New Zealand, but rather, whether
New Zealand offers a remedy for their losses."). Significantly,
Plaintiffs do not argue that compensation from the Fund "is
so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory, that it is no remedy at
all . . . ." Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1143. Accordingly, the Fund
alone supports our conclusion that the district court did not
abuse its discretion in deeming China an adequate forum.
Further, even if the forum non conveniens doctrine did
require the existence of an adequate alternative judicial rem-
edy, the record in this matter shows that the district court did
not abuse its discretion in finding that Synutra "met [its] bur-
den of showing that China is an adequate forum." Tang, 2010
WL 1375373, at *10. Although Plaintiffs characterize Syn-
utra’s evidence as a "general" showing that China has an ade-
quate judiciary, Synutra actually introduced substantial
evidence that China’s courts are available to hear contami-
nated formula cases. The record shows that at least two pro-
vincial courts accepted contaminated formula cases prior to
the district court’s decision, and an officer of China’s highest
court announced that court’s readiness "to accept and hear
these cases according to law at any time." Synutra submitted
at least one affidavit explaining that inaction or delay by Chi-
nese courts might be attributable to formal defects in the com-
16 TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL
plaints and not the courts’ resistance to the subject matter of
the cases. This evidence supports the district court’s finding
that Plaintiffs may seek a remedy in China’s courts if they so
elect, notwithstanding Plaintiffs’ evidence to the contrary.
In sum, we uphold the district court’s determination that
China is an adequate forum because 1) the Fund is available
to compensate Plaintiffs for their losses, and 2) substantial
evidence supports the district court’s finding that a judicial
remedy is available in China.
V.
Plaintiffs also argue that the district court erred by accept-
ing the Fund as an adequate remedy. They reject the Fund as
a mere "settlement plan sponsored and supported by the
wrongdoers themselves" that cannot "take the place of court
decisionmaking and adjudication even for those claimants
who refuse to accept the terms of that plan . . . ." Brief of
Appellant at 25. We disagree.
Again, this argument is founded on the theory that Plain-
tiffs must have a judicial remedy in China before China can
be considered an adequate forum. In section IV, we rejected
this theory on two grounds: 1) the forum non conveniens doc-
trine does not limit adequate alternative remedies to judicial
ones; and 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion by
finding that China’s courts are in fact available to hear Plain-
tiffs’ claims. The first conclusion, in particular, is fatal to
Plaintiffs’ objection that the Fund is structured as a settle-
ment.
Because a judicial remedy is not required, it is immaterial
that Plaintiffs must waive their right to sue if they elect com-
pensation from the Fund. See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1143 (find-
ing an adequate alternative remedy where New Zealand law
did not permit an analogous tort action but provided a less
rewarding administrative compensation scheme). We agree
TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL 17
with Lueck that the "forum non conveniens analysis does not
look to the precise source of the plaintiff’s remedy . . . ." Id.
at 1145. Instead, courts determine whether an alternative rem-
edy exists. Id.; cf. Nemariam v. Fed. Democratic Republic of
Eth., 315 F.3d 390, 394-95 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (finding prospec-
tive remedy from a multi-national commission between Eri-
trea and Ethiopia inadequate because plaintiff lacked a
personal right to recover an award made by the commission);
EDAPS Consortium v. Kiyanichenko, No. C 05-01931 WHA,
2005 WL 2000940, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2005) (holding
Ukraine inadequate because no analogous judicial remedy
existed and available administrative fines were payable to the
government). Thus, the structure of the Fund as a settlement
is not dispositive; it is enough that the Fund is available to
compensate Plaintiffs for their losses. Therefore, we reject
Plaintiffs’ argument.
VI.
Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in
weighing the relevant private and public interest factors
because it focused on where Plaintiffs’ injuries occurred
(China) rather than where Synutra made its allegedly faulty
decisions (Maryland). We disagree.
While this argument has some appeal, the forum non conve-
niens doctrine is ultimately concerned with convenience, not
simply the locus of alleged wrongful conduct. See Piper Air-
craft, 454 U.S. at 249 ("the central focus of the forum non
conveniens inquiry is convenience"). In this case, the most
relevant private interest factors are "the relative ease of access
to sources of proof" and "availability of compulsory process"
to obtain the attendance of witnesses. Id. at 241 n.6 (quotation
marks omitted). The pertinent public interest factors are the
"local interest in having localized controversies decided at
home"; the avoidance of complex comparative law issues; and
"the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum
with jury duty." Id. (quotation marks omitted). Thus, the locus
18 TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL
of alleged wrongful conduct is just one of several private and
public interest factors that should be weighed to determine
whether the alternative forum is more convenient.
Here, the district court properly exercised its discretion in
weighing the relevant factors. Noting that the contaminated
formula products were manufactured, marketed, distributed,
and consumed in China, the district court anticipated that
most of the evidence and witnesses are in China. The court
rightly observed that it lacks authority to compel the atten-
dance of Chinese witnesses, greatly undermining a fact-
finding effort in Maryland. Tang, 2010 WL 1375373, at *12;
see also Tazoe v. Airbus S.A.S., 631 F.3d 1321, 1331-32 (11th
Cir. 2011) (explaining that the district court’s lack of compul-
sory process to obtain the attendance of Brazilian witnesses
favored dismissal). Moreover, because much of the evidence
will derive from Chinese witnesses, trial in an American court
will require costly translators. In sum, the district court was
well within its discretion in concluding that the private inter-
est factors favor dismissal.
The same is true of the public interest factors. Because the
contaminated infant formula was manufactured and distrib-
uted in China, the district court would likely encounter com-
plex issues of Chinese law. The forum non conveniens
doctrine exists largely to avoid such comparative law prob-
lems. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 251 ("The doctrine of forum
non conveniens . . . is designed in part to help courts avoid
conducting complex exercises in comparative law."); Galus-
tian, 591 F.3d at 732 (refusing to require an exhaustive com-
parison between Iraqi and American law). Further, we agree
with the district court that China has a greater interest in this
dispute—the contaminated formula products were distributed
through the channels of Chinese commerce and consumed by
Chinese citizens. Maryland’s residents should therefore not be
saddled with resolving the conflict. Moreover, Plaintiffs’
choice to sue in the District of Maryland receives little defer-
ence because they are all Chinese citizens and residents. See
TANG v. SYNUTRA INTERNATIONAL 19
Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 256. At bottom, the district court
did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the public
interest factors favor China as the most appropriate forum.
VII.
In sum, we hold that Synutra carried its burden and showed
that Plaintiffs can obtain a remedy for their injuries either
from the Chinese courts or the Fund. Thus, the district court
did not abuse its discretion in finding that China is an ade-
quate alternative forum. Furthermore, the district court did not
err by weighing the public and private interest factors and
finding that China is a more convenient forum in which to
adjudicate this dispute. Accordingly, the district court’s forum
non conveniens dismissal was not an abuse of discretion, and
we affirm.
AFFIRMED