IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 95-21046
_____________________
SEGUROS COMERCIAL AMERICA S A DE C V,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES LTD,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
_________________________________________________________________
June 28, 1996
Before KING, JOLLY, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The district court has provided the litigants and this court
with a careful opinion addressing each of the issues raised by
Seguros Comercial America S.A. de C.V. (“Seguros”) in the
district court. Seguros reurges those issues here by claiming
that its case should have been transferred to Laredo and not
dismissed for forum non conveniens. We have reviewed the briefs
and the record and we think that the district court did not abuse
its discretion when it dismissed the case on the basis of forum
non conveniens.
Seguros raises one additional argument on appeal.
Specifically, it argues that:
Under Texas law, once a foreign corporation has
standing to sue, the doctrine of forum non conveniens
does not apply. Since a federal court exercising
diversity jurisdiction must look to state law to
determine standing to sue, the doctrine of forum non
conveniens similarly has no application in a Texas
federal court to a Texas authorized foreign corporate
plaintiff.
Seguros recognizes that the federal law on forum non
conveniens governs in diversity cases, but it argues that this
case should present an “exception to the general rule.” We have
considered this argument for crafting an exception, but we find
it unpersuasive.
The district court concluded that an adequate and alternative
forum is available and that the ends of justice would be best
served in this alternative forum. Citing to a letter that
discusses a type of statute of limitations problem, allegedly
nonwaivable, Seguros claims that the district court abused its
discretion by not retaining jurisdiction in the event a Mexican
court refuses to hear the case. The district court crafted a
judgment that addressed any statute of limitations problem as
best it could, and we find no abuse of discretion in the manner
any such problem is dealt with.
Seguros also states that the stipulations incorporated by
reference in the dismissal order are unacceptable to Mexican
courts unless they are certified by the clerk of the district
court. The request that the stipulations be formally
2
incorporated into a conditional dismissal order is a reasonable
one. Therefore, we direct the parties to the suit to arrive at
an amended form of judgment to be submitted to the district court
for entry within one week after the issuance of our mandate.
We VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND with
instructions to enter an amended judgment, to be prepared by the
parties, formally incorporating the stipulations. Costs shall be
borne by Seguros.
VACATED and REMANDED.
3
Seguros Cmercl v. Amer Pres Lines Ltd
Combined Opinion