In Dibble v. Torax Medical, Inc., No. 24-1385 (8th Cir. Aug. 7, 2025), the Eighth Circuit (in a split decision, Judge Loken dissenting without opinion) reverses an order dismissing a case in the District of Minnesota in favor of venue in the United Kingdom. The panel holds that the district court erroneously focused on the case’s connection to Minnesota instead of contacts with the USA as a whole.
“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.”
While not disputing that jurisdiction and venue were proper, defendant Torax argued that because the events underlying the suit were not concentrated in Minnesota, the case ought to be transferred instead to the UK, where the original surgery occurred. The district court granted the motion, dismissed the case with prejudice, and denied the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to allege more connections to Minnesota.
The Eighth Circuit reverses and remands for rehearing. “Regardless of the amount of deference owed to the [foreign] plaintiff[‘s choice of forum], defendants have the burden — typically a heavy burden — to establish that dismissal is warranted based on forum non conveniens . . . . 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.”
The panel majority also noted that the district court did not properly weight the relevant interest factors. “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.” But the panel majority notes, citing an Eleventh Circuit decision, that “[t]he district court should have analyzed the forum non conveniens question by looking at all contacts between the case and the whole United States,” not just the forum state.
“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 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.”
Paul Mollica's Federal Courts Blog 