DeCicco v. Dynata, LLC
Citations
- 354 Conn. 51
Syllabus
The plaintiffs brought an action in Connecticut to recover damages from the defendants, D Co., a Connecticut limited liability company, and two of its officers, for, inter alia, the wrongful death of certain individuals who died in a building fire in the Philippines. The trial court granted the defen- dants' motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' action on the ground of forum non conveniens, concluding that the Philippine courts served as an adequate alternative forum for the plaintiffs' action. The trial court rendered judg- ment dismissing the plaintiffs' action but conditioned its dismissal on the plaintiffs being allowed to restore their action in Connecticut if the Philip- pine courts ultimately dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiffs thereafter appealed to the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment of dismissal. On the granting of certification, the plaintiffs appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had applied the correct legal standard in concluding that the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum for the plaintiffs' action. Held: The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court had applied the correct legal standard set forth in Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc. (215 Conn. 490), in determining whether the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum for the plaintiffs' action. Moreover, there was no merit to the plaintiffs' claim that the trial court had dismissed their action solely on the basis of the defendants' consent to submit to the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts, as the trial court prop- erly undertook a meaningful assessment of whether the Philippines was an adequate alternative forum by weighing the parties' competing affidavits submitted in connection with the defendants' motion to dismiss. Furthermore, the trial court properly made its dismissal contingent on the defendants' stipulation that they would ag
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Bright
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSupreme Court· 1982-01-25· cited 4,581×
- Van Cauwenberghe v. BiardSupreme Court· 1988-06-13· cited 667×
- Francis Schertenleib v. Jerome S. TraumSecond Circuit· 1978-12-15· cited 192×
- Deb v. Sirva, Inc.Seventh Circuit· 2016-08-11· cited 158×
- Anibal Conte, Libelant-Appellee-Appellant v. Flota Mercante Del Estado, Respondent-Appellant-AppelleeSecond Circuit· 1960-04-01· cited 120×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-11-25· cited 99×
- Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-06-26· cited 84×
- Union Carbide Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-07-25· cited 59×
- Mills v. Aetna Fire Underwriters InsuranceDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1986-06-11· cited 46×
- Bank of Credit & Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. v. State Bank of PakistanSecond Circuit· 2001-11-29· cited 46×
- Figueiredo Ferraz E Engenharia De Projeto Ltda. v. Republic of PeruSecond Circuit· 2011-12-14· cited 40×
- Associação Brasileira De Medicina De Grupo v. Stryker Corp.Sixth Circuit· 2018-05-31· cited 39×
- Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Industries, Inc.Second Circuit· 2005-07-21· cited 23×
- Lockheed Martin Corp. v. MorgantiSupreme Court· 2006-05-30· cited 19×
- Durkin v. Intevac, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-10-30· cited 18×
- Rigroup LLC v. Trefonisco Management Ltd.S.D. New York· 2013-06-07· cited 18×
- In re Annessa J.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-06-20· cited 6×
- Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co. v. PasiakSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-02-21· cited 5×
- TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD. v. OnischenkoD. New Jersey· 2007-04-25· cited 4×
- Pfister v. Madison Beach Hotel, LLCSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-01-05· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.