REASONS FOR DENYING THE WRIT
The Petition poses only one question: whether the decision of the Ninth Circuit conflicts with decisions of other circuits. The three areas of claimed conflict are: (1) standard of proof; (2) public policy; and (3) concerns of comity. In fact, Petitioner does not cite any actual conflict, but instead merely raises questions about the Ninth Circuit’s application of properly stated rules of law. Petitioner’s assertions do not warrant a grant of a writ of certiorari, and thus the Petitioner’s request should be denied.
The Court Of Appeals’ Analysis Is Consistent With Those Of Other Circuits And The Petition For Writ Of Certiorari Should Be Denied.
In reviewing the District Court’s order dismissing Ms. Ito’s complaint for forum non conveniens, the Court of Appeals properly applied the settled standards under which all courts of appeals review a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. First, the Court of Appeals correctly identified two distinct errors with the District Court’s ruling– the District Court failed to place the burden of proof on Tokio Marine, and it misapprehended the nature of Ms. Ito’s claims. The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that both errors amounted to an abuse of discretion is entirely consistent with opinions from the other courts of appeals. Then, the Court of Appeals evaluated Tokio Marine’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. In so doing, the Court of Appeals correctly applied the factors set forth in Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947), and the burden of proof established in Koster v. Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company, 330 U.S. 518 (1947). See Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257-60 (1981)