Craig Dibble v. Torax Medical, Inc.; Ethicon, Inc.

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 24-1385
___________________________
Craig Dibble
Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Torax Medical, Inc.; Ethicon, Inc.
Defendants - Appellees
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota
____________
Submitted: October 23, 2024
Filed: August 7, 2025
____________
Before LOKEN, SMITH, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
GRASZ, Circuit Judge.
This appeal centers on whether a product liability lawsuit should be litigated
in Minnesota or the United Kingdom. A foreign citizen who had a medical device
implanted in the United Kingdom but later surgically removed in the United States,
sued the device’s manufacturer, which was based in Minnesota during the time of
the complained-of conduct, and the manufacturer’s parent company, which is based
in New Jersey. The manufacturer and parent company moved to dismiss the lawsuit

-- 1 of 7 --

-2-
based on forum non conveniens, a doctrine that ensures a trial is held in a convenient
forum, and argued the case should be litigated in the United Kingdom. Weighing
all contacts that occurred outside Minnesota in favor of the United Kingdom, the
district court agreed, dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, and denied the plaintiff
the opportunity to amend his complaint. We reverse and remand for the district court
to conduct a new forum non conveniens analysis, holding defendants to their proper
burden of persuasion and appropriately weighing the relevant factors.
I. Background
Craig Dibble was born in the United Kingdom and is a resident of Japan. He
underwent an operation in the United Kingdom to install a medical device
manufactured by Torax Medical, Inc., which is a subsidiary of Ethicon, Inc. Dibble
alleges the device eventually failed and that he then traveled to Colorado where a
surgeon removed the failed device and implanted a new one. Dibble alleges the new
device also failed to provide adequate relief. Dibble underwent additional testing
and monitoring in Thailand. Ultimately frustrated by the device’s performance,
Dibble sued Torax and Ethicon (collectively, Defendants) for negligence and strict
liability. He filed these claims in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, where Torax was based before Dibble’s lawsuit.
Defendants did not dispute that jurisdiction and venue were proper, but moved
to dismiss based on forum non conveniens. Without submitting additional
information, they argued the case should be litigated in the United Kingdom. Dibble
opposed the motion, contending the case belonged in the United States and that the
United Kingdom was not a convenient forum. In addition to the facts stated in his
complaint showing connections to the United States, Dibble asserted certain
connections to Minnesota in his response brief. Dibble primarily argued there was
evidence showing that Torax’s principal place of business was in Minnesota during
the complained-of conduct and that key witnesses involved in the marketing,
designing, and manufacturing of the device would be found in the United States. He
also emphasized the importance of his Colorado surgery, which removed the

-- 2 of 7 --

-3-
allegedly defective device, and he pointed out that Defendants’ businesses operated
in New Jersey and Ohio. In his brief, he also requested leave to amend the complaint
for the first time “to clarify and allege in even more detail the links between the
United States and the circumstances at issue” if the court were “inclined to grant
defendants’ motion.”
The court then held a non-evidentiary hearing for the parties to argue which
forum was proper. At the hearing, Dibble further argued the case belonged in
Minnesota because actions and decisions relevant to his claims were executed by
Torax while in Minnesota. Meanwhile, Defendants contended the “case’s
connection to Minnesota” was “minimal” and that the court was “constrained” to
what was “pled in the complaint.” Defendants “urge[d the court] to stick with the
facts as pled in the complaint” and asserted that “any amendment to the complaint
in order to create a stronger connection to Minnesota would be futile.”
The district court granted the motion and dismissed Dibble’s case with
prejudice. In doing so, it “decline[d] Dibble’s request to amend his complaint to add
more facts tying this case to Minnesota,” explaining that “[t]he record and the
arguments made at the hearing in this matter convince[d] the court that such an
amendment would be futile.”
Following the district court’s decision, Dibble requested permission to file a
motion to reconsider. The district court denied Dibble’s request. Dibble now
appeals and challenges the court’s dismissal based on forum non conveniens and the
denial of his opportunity to amend.
II. Analysis
“The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to decline to exercise
jurisdiction and dismiss a case where that case would more appropriately be brought
in a foreign jurisdiction.” K-V Pharm. Co. v. J. Uriach & CIA, S.A., 648 F.3d 588,
597 (8th Cir. 2011). The “central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is

-- 3 of 7 --

-4-
to ensure that the trial is convenient.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235,
256 (1981). But a court may apply the doctrine “only in ‘exceptional
circumstances.’” K-V Pharm. Co, 648 F.3d at 597 (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v.
Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 504 (1947)). Thus, “[a] defendant invoking forum non
conveniens ordinarily bears a heavy burden in opposing the plaintiff’s chosen
forum.” Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430
(2007).
The forum non conveniens inquiry “involves a two-part analysis.” Est. of
I.E.H. v. CKE Rests., Holdings, Inc., 995 F.3d 659, 663 (8th Cir. 2021). First, a court
must determine whether there is an available and adequate alternative forum. See
de Melo v. Lederle Lab’ys, Div. of Am. Cyanamid Corp., 801 F.2d 1058, 1060 (8th
Cir. 1986); Reid-Walen v. Hansen, 933 F.2d 1390, 1393 n.2 (8th Cir. 1991). Second,
the court must “balance the private interest factors, which affect the convenience of
the litigants, and the public interest factors, which affect the convenience of the
forum.” de Melo, 801 F.2d at 1062. The private interest factors 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. There may also be questions as to the enforcibility [sic]
of a judgment if one is obtained.
Est. of I.E.H., 995 F.3d at 663 (alteration in original) (quoting K-V Pharm. Co., 648
F.3d at 597). The public interest factors include consideration of administrative
difficulties for the forum court, the local public’s interest in the controversy, and
whether the forum’s law will govern the case. See id.
We review a district court’s forum non conveniens determination for abuse of
discretion. Id. at 662–63. A district court may abuse its discretion when it “fails to
consider one or more of the important private or public interest factors, does not hold

-- 4 of 7 --

-5-
the defendants to their burden of persuasion on all elements of the forum non
conveniens analysis, or has clearly erred in weighing the factors the court must
consider.” Reid-Walen, 933 F.2d at 1394.
We conclude the district court abused its discretion by failing to hold
Defendants to their proper burden of persuasion on all elements of the analysis. It
is true that the district court correctly pointed out that “a foreign plaintiff’s choice
deserves less deference” than a plaintiff suing in his home state. Piper Aircraft, 454
U.S. at 256. But it failed to acknowledge precedent from the Supreme Court and
this court explaining motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens should not be
lightly granted.
“Even though we review for an abuse of discretion, the emphasis on the
district court’s discretion must not overshadow the central principle of Supreme
Court precedent that unless the balance of these factors is strongly in favor of the
defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.” Est. of I.E.H.,
995 F.3d at 663 (cleaned up) (emphasis added). Though “‘a foreign plaintiff’s
choice deserves less deference’ than a resident plaintiff’s choice because the
assumption that the foreign plaintiff’s forum choice is convenient ‘is much less
reasonable,’ . . . resident plaintiffs are given only ‘somewhat more deference than
foreign plaintiffs.’” Id. (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 256 & n.23).
Regardless of the amount of deference owed to the plaintiff, defendants have
the burden — typically a heavy burden — to establish that dismissal is warranted
based on forum non conveniens. See Reid-Walen, 933 F.2d at 1393. The defendant
must carry the burden “because of the ‘harsh result’ of that doctrine.” Atl. Marine
Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 66 n.8 (2013) (brackets
omitted) (quoting Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32 (1955)). Applying the
doctrine results in dismissal of the case, which “inconveniences plaintiffs in several
respects and even ‘makes it possible for plaintiffs to lose out completely, through
the running of the statute of limitations in the forum finally deemed appropriate.’”
Id. (brackets omitted) (quoting Norwood, 349 U.S. at 31). Thus, although “extensive

-- 5 of 7 --

-6-
investigation” is not required for a forum non conveniens inquiry, “defendants must
provide enough information to enable the District Court to balance the parties’
interests.” Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 258. Indeed, in some circumstances, other
“adequate factual proof” may be “necessary to carry [defendants’] burden of
persuasion on some of the private and public interest factors.” See Reid-Walen, 933
F.2d at 1401. Here, Defendants did not present additional information to the district
court, and we are not convinced the district court held Defendants to their burden of
persuasion on all elements of the forum non conveniens analysis based on the record.
Our concern is further illustrated by how the district court weighed the
relevant interest factors. In dismissing with prejudice and denying Dibble’s request
to amend, the district court reasoned that “[m]ost if not all of the facts underlying
this case occurred in the UK or elsewhere outside of Minnesota – Japan, Colorado,
Thailand.” It explained that “[a]s such, relevant documents and witnesses will be
found outside of Minnesota.” Later in its analysis, it again reasoned that “most if
not all of the material facts occurred in the UK or elsewhere outside of Minnesota.”
We agree with Dibble that the district court erred when it viewed all evidence outside
Minnesota as weighing in favor of the United Kingdom. “The district court should
have analyzed the forum non conveniens question by looking at all contacts between
the case and the whole United States.” See Wilson v. Island Seas Invs., Ltd., 590
F.3d 1264, 1271 (11th Cir. 2009).
Dibble’s treatment in Colorado and Defendants’ operations in New Jersey and
Ohio do not weigh more in favor of litigating the case in the United Kingdom than
litigating the case in Minnesota. See Duha v. Agrium, Inc., 448 F.3d 867, 878 (6th
Cir. 2006) (“The cost of obtaining willing witnesses’ attendance weighs in favor of
keeping this trial in the U.S. forum because witnesses in the U.S. and Canada can
travel more cheaply to the U.S. forum than to Argentina.”). Likewise, while maybe
a closer call, it is not clear that contacts in Thailand and Japan should weigh in favor
of the United Kingdom as opposed to weighing neutrally. The district court’s
analysis was flawed because it automatically weighed all contacts outside Minnesota
in favor of the United Kingdom. Thus, we reverse and remand to the district court

-- 6 of 7 --

-7-
so that it may conduct a new forum non conveniens analysis, holding Defendants to
their proper burden of persuasion on all elements and appropriately weighing the
relevant factors it must consider.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse and remand.
LOKEN, Circuit Judge, dissenting without opinion.
______________________________

-- 7 of 7 --