EFiled: Jun 18 2018 10:O7AMERT
`Transaction ID 62146717 (i AhiN Ay)
`Case No. 2018-0435-JTL
` MQy4s/
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit (cid:21)(cid:19)
`Exhibit ™
`
`Part 1 of 2
`
`EFiled: Jun 18 2018 10:07AM EDT
`Transaction ID 62146717
`Case No. 2018-0435-JTL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OTTO CANDIES, LLC, et al.,
`
`
`IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. N16C-02-260-PRW (CCLD)
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`
`KPMG LLP, et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`COMPENDIUM OF UNREPORTED DECISIONS
`IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
`
`David E. Ross (Bar No. 5228)
`100 S. West Street, Suite 400
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801
`(302) 576-1600
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
` & SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`Terry L. Wit
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 875-6600
`
`A. William Urquhart
`Derek L. Shaffer
`777 6th Street NW, 11th Floor
`Washington, DC 20001
`(202) 538-8000
`
`Dated: September 13, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`EFiled: Sep 13 2017 11:58PM EDT
`Transaction ID 61115484
`Case No. N16C-02-260 PRW CCLD
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Cases
`
`INDEX
`
`
`Tab
`
`
`Abrahamsen v. ConocoPhillips Co.,
`2014 WL 2884870 (Del. Super. Ct. 2014) ........................................................... 1
`Am. Capital Acquisition Partners, LLC v. LPL Holdings, Inc.,
`2014 WL 354496 (Del. Ch. 2014) ........................................................................ 2
`Anderson v. Airco, Inc.,
`2004 WL 1551484 (Del. Super. Ct. 2004) ........................................................... 3
`Anjoorian v. Arnold Kilberg & Co.,
`2006 WL 3436051 (R.I. Super. Ct. 2006) ............................................................ 4
`Estate of Antonio v. Pedersen,
`2012 WL 6163190 (D. Vt. 2012) .......................................................................... 5
`Arteaga v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.,
`2012 WL 5992810 (Del. Super. Ct. 2012) ........................................................... 6
`In re Arthur Treacher’s Fish & Chips,
`1980 WL 268070 (Del. Ch. 1980) ........................................................................ 7
`In re Asbestos Litig.,
`2016 WL 7404547 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016) ........................................................... 8
`Barrera v. Monsanto Co.,
`2016 WL 4938876 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016) ........................................................... 9
`Beber v. Kanarick,
`1993 WL 118522 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ..................................................................... 10
`Benning v. Wit Capital Grp., Inc.,
`2004 WL 3030005 (Del. Super. Ct. 2004) ......................................................... 11
`
`Black v. Chromascape, Inc.,
`2016 WL 6087103 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016) ......................................................... 12
`Brevet Capital Special Opportunities Fund, LP v. Fourth Third, LLC,
`2011 WL 3452821 (Del. Super. Ct. 2011) ......................................................... 13
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`
`
`C.V. One v. Res. Grp.,
`1982 WL 172863 (Del. Super. Ct. 1982)............................................................ 14
`Carello v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,
`2002 WL 1454111 (Del. Super. Ct. 2002) ......................................................... 15
`In re Chambers Dev. Co. S’holders Litig.,
`1993 WL 179335 (Del. Ch. 1993) ...................................................................... 16
`Chase Manhattan Mortg. Corp. v. Advanta Corp.,
`2005 WL 2234608 (D. Del. 2005) ...................................................................... 17
`CIFG Assurance N. Am., Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A.,
`2013 WL 5380385 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013) ............................................................ 18
`In re Coffee Assocs., Inc.,
`1993 WL 512505 (Del. Ch. 1993) ...................................................................... 19
`Colle v. Goldman,
`2007 WL 1395561 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) .................................................................. 20
`Conley v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC,
`2016 WL 4764932 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016) ......................................................... 21
`Cumpston v. McShane,
`2009 WL 1566484 (Del. Super. Ct. 2009) ......................................................... 22
`Debakey Corp. v. Raytheon Serv. Co.,
`2000 WL 1273317 (Del. Ch. 2000) .................................................................... 23
`Decker, Decker & Assocs., Inc. v. Ass’n of Nat’l Advertisers, Inc.,
`2007 WL 1053881 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007) ............................................................ 24
`Djukic v. Doubletree Franchise LLC,
`2015 WL 9594708 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015) ......................................................... 25
`DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum DNA,
`2016 WL 7232770 (D. Del. 2016) ...................................................................... 26
`eCommerce Indus., Inc. v. MWA Intelligence, Inc.,
`2013 WL 5621678 (Del. Ch. 2013) .................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`
`
`Emerald Partners v. Berlin,
`2003 WL 21003437 (Del. Ch. 2003) .................................................................. 28
`Farm Family Cas. Co. v. Cumberland Ins.,
`2013 WL 5488656 (Del. Super. Ct. 2013) ......................................................... 29
`Finegan v. Autotransportes Tufesa S.A. de C.V.,
`2009 WL 331349 (D. Ariz. 2009) ...................................................................... 30
`First Keystone Consultants, Inc. v. DDR Constr. Servs.,
`2009 WL 3415282 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2009) ............................................................ 31
`Flaa v. Montano,
`2013 WL 5498045 (Del. Ch. 2013) .................................................................... 32
`Fortis Advisors LLC v. Dialog Semiconductor PLC,
`2015 WL 401371 (Del. Ch. 2015) ...................................................................... 33
`In re Fuqua Indus., Inc.,
`2005 WL 1138744 (Del. Ch. 2005) .................................................................... 34
`George v. Kuschwa,
`1986 WL 6588 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986) ................................................................ 35
`Graphic Commc’ns Int’l Union v. Case-Hoyt Corp.,
`1997 WL 610765 (N.D.N.Y. 1997) .................................................................... 36
`Grunstein v. Silva,
`2009 WL 4698541 (Del. Ch. 2009) .................................................................... 37
`Gunton Corp. v. KNZ Constr., Inc.,
`1999 WL 744423 (Del. Super. Ct. 1999)............................................................ 38
`Herman v. BRP, Inc.,
`2015 WL 1733805 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015) ......................................................... 39
`Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. of Pittsburgh,
`1991 WL 190313 (Del. Super. Ct. 1991)............................................................ 40
`Honig v. US Bank N.A.,
`2013 WL 3782491 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013) ............................................................ 41
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`Hospitalists of Del., LLC v. Lutz,
`2012 WL 3679219 (Del. Ch. 2012) .................................................................... 42
`Hupan v. All. One Int’1, Inc.,
`2015 WL 7776659 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015) ......................................................... 43
`Hupan v. All. One Int’l Inc.,
`2016 WL 4502304 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016) ......................................................... 44
`Iocono v. Air Prod.,
`1993 WL 318857 (Del. Super. Ct. 1993)............................................................ 45
`Israel Disc. Bank of N.Y. v. First State Depository Co.,
`2013 WL 2326875 (Del. Ch. 2013) .................................................................... 46
`J.E. Rhoads & Sons, Inc. v. Ammeraal, Inc.,
`1988 WL 32012 (Del. Super. Ct. 1998) .............................................................. 47
`Jack J. Morris Assocs. v. Mispillion St. Partners, LLC,
`2008 WL 3906755 (Del. Super. Ct. 2008) ......................................................... 48
`Kane v. Coffman,
`2001 WL 914016 (Del. Super. Ct. 2001)............................................................ 49
`Kwiatkowski v. Bear Stearns Co.,
`1997 WL 538819 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ..................................................................... 50
`Library Bureau, Inc. v. Carter,
`1986 WL 9936 (Del. Super. Ct. 1986) ................................................................ 51
`Lisa, S.A. v. Mayorga,
`2009 WL 1846308 (Del. Ch. 2009) .................................................................... 52
`Lundeen v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC,
`2006 WL 2559855 (Del. Super. Ct. 2006) ......................................................... 53
`Manzo v. Rite Aid Corp.,
`2002 WL 31926606 (Del. Ch. 2002) .................................................................. 54
`Mark Fox Grp., Inc. v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co.,
`2003 WL 21524886 (Del. Ch. 2003) .................................................................. 55
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`
`
`Mawere v. Landau,
`2013 WL 2217757 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013) ............................................................ 56
`McBride v. KPMG Int’l,
`2014 WL 3707977 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2014) ............................................................ 57
`McElhaney v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co.,
`2013 WL 4829283 (Del. Super. Ct. 2013) ......................................................... 58
`In re McKinney-Ringham Corp.,
`1998 WL 118035 (Del. Ch. 1998) ...................................................................... 59
`Metro. Life Ins. v. Tremont Grp. Holdings, Inc.,
`2012 WL 6632681 (Del. Ch. 2012) .................................................................... 60
`Millsboro Fire Co. v. Constr. Mgmt. Serv., Inc.,
`2006 WL 1867705 (Del. Super. Ct. 2006) ......................................................... 61
`Milton Abeles, Inc. v. Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, LLC,
`2009 WL 875553 (E.D.N.Y. 2009) .................................................................... 62
`In re Mobilactive Media, LLC,
`2013 WL 297950 (Del. Ch. 2013) ...................................................................... 63
`Montgomery v. Achenbach,
`2007 WL 3105812 (Del. Super. Ct. 2007) ......................................................... 64
`Mountain Highlands, LLC v. Hendricks,
`2009 WL 2426197 (D.N.M. 2009) ..................................................................... 65
`Mozeik v. Seramone & Sons Home Improvements, Inc.,
`2015 WL 1912724 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015) ......................................................... 66
`Neblett v. Clairmont Paciello & Co.,
`2016 WL 3181904 (M.D. Pa. 2016) ................................................................... 67
`Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Stone & Webster Eng’g Corp.,
`1992 WL 121726 (N.D.N.Y. 1992) .................................................................... 68
`Nuevo Mundo Holdings v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,
`2004 WL 112948 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) ..................................................................... 69
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`Ohrstrom v. Harris Tr. Co. of N.Y.,
`1998 WL 8849 (Del. Ch. 1998) .......................................................................... 70
`Oliver v. Bos. Univ.,
`2000 WL 1091480 (Del. Ch. 2000) .................................................................... 71
`In re Parkcentral Glob. Litig.,
`2010 WL 3119403 (N.D. Tex. 2010) ................................................................. 72
`Pena v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.,
`2009 WL 847414 (Del. Super. Ct. 2009)............................................................ 73
`Pike v. Commodore Motel Corp.,
`1985 WL 11564 (Del. Ch. 1985) ........................................................................ 74
`Pipal Tech Ventures Private Ltd. v. MoEngage, Inc.,
`2015 WL 9257869 (Del. Ch. 2015) .................................................................... 75
`Pivotal Payments Direct Corp. v. Planet Payment, Inc.,
`2015 WL 11120934 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015) ....................................................... 76
`Red Sail Easter L.P. v. Radio City Music Hall Prods., Inc.,
`1991 WL 129174 (Del. Ch. 1991) ...................................................................... 77
`Republic Envtl. Sys., Inc. v. RESI Acquisition (Del.) Corp.,
`1999 WL 464521 (Del. Super. Ct. 1999)............................................................ 78
`Roberts v. Delmarva Power & Light Co.,
`2007 WL 2319762 (Del. Super. Ct. 2007) ......................................................... 79
`Rudolph ex rel. Rudolph v. Gen. Motors LLC,
`2014 WL 626921 (Del. Super. Ct. 2014)............................................................ 80
`S3 Graphics Co. v. ATI Techs., ULC,
`2015 WL 7307241 (D. Del. 2015) ...................................................................... 81
`Satellite Fin. Planning Corp. v. First Nat’l Bank of Wilmington,
`1987 WL 7189 (D. Del. 1987) ............................................................................ 82
`Schnall v. Annuity & Life RE (Holdings), Ltd.,
`2006 WL 2331138 (D. Conn. 2006) ................................................................... 83
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`
`
`Siemer v. Bahri Aviation Inc.,
`1984 WL 485872 (Del. Super. Ct. 1984)............................................................ 84
`Sills v. Smith & Wesson Corp.,
`2000 WL 33113806 (Del. Super. Ct. 2000) ....................................................... 85
`Simian Line v. Shoreline Entm’t, Inc.,
`1999 WL 627441 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ..................................................................... 86
`Skidmore Energy, Inc. v. KPMG LLP,
`2004 WL 3019097 (N.D. Tex. 2004) ................................................................. 87
`
`Smack v. Hayden,
`2003 WL 21213398 (Del. Super. Ct. 2003) ....................................................... 88
`Snyder v. Butcher & Co.,
`1992 WL 240344 (Del. Super. Ct. 1992)............................................................ 89
`Solar Travel Corp. v. Nachtomi,
`2001 WL 641151 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ..................................................................... 90
`Star Energy Corp. v. RSM Top-Audit,
`2008 WL 5110919 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ................................................................... 91
`State Dep’t of Transp. v. Figg Bridge Eng’rs, Inc.,
`2011 WL 5593163 (Del. Super. Ct. 2011) ......................................................... 92
`Steinman v. Levine,
`2002 WL 31761252 (Del. Ch. 2002) .................................................................. 93
`Stephens v. Am. Risk Mgmt., Inc.,
`1993 WL 43494 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) ....................................................................... 94
`Stidham v. Kinnamon,
`1988 WL 146536 (Del. Super. Ct. 1988)............................................................ 95
`Stuchen v. Duty Free Int’l, Inc.,
`1996 WL 33167249 (Del. Super. Ct. 1996) ....................................................... 96
`Summit Inv’rs II, L.P. v. Sechrist Indus., Inc.,
`2002 WL 31260989 (Del. Ch. 2002) .................................................................. 97
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`Talley Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,
`1992 WL 240341 (Del. Super. Ct. 1992)............................................................ 98
`Tanner v. Exxon Corp.,
`1981 WL 191389 (Del. Super. Ct. 1981)............................................................ 99
`Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund v. Astrazeneca Pharm. LP,
`2015 WL 4111826 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015) ....................................................... 100
`Telcordia Techs., Inc. v. Alcatel S.A.,
`2005 WL 1268061 (D. Del. 2005) .................................................................... 101
`Tell v. Roman Catholic Bishops of Diocese of Allentown,
`2010 WL 1691199 (Del. Super. Ct. 2010) ....................................................... 102
`TIAA-CREF Individual & Institutional Servs., LLC v. Ill. Nat’l Ins.,
`2016 WL 6534271 (Del. Super. Ct. 2016) ....................................................... 103
`United States v. Oakford Corp.,
`1999 WL 1201725 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) ................................................................. 104
`Vilone & Grossi, Inc. v. Kipp,
`1991 WL 189133 (Del. Ch. 1991) .................................................................... 105
`VTB Bank v. Navitron Projects Corp.,
`2014 WL 1691250 (Del. Ch. 2014) .................................................................. 106
`Wah Chang Smelting & Ref. Co. of Am. v. Cleveland Tungsten Inc.,
`1996 WL 487941 (Del. Ch. 1996) .................................................................... 107
`Welch v. TD Ameritrade Holding Corp.,
`2009 WL 2356131 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) ................................................................. 108
`Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Strong,
`2015 WL 9594717 (Del. Super. Ct. 2015) ....................................................... 109
`White v. APP Pharm., LLC,
`2011 WL 2176151 (Del. Super. Ct. 2011) ....................................................... 110
`Wilson v. Active Crane Rentals, Inc.,
`2004 WL 1732275 (Del. Super. Ct. 2004) ....................................................... 111
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`
`
`Wilson v. Pepper,
`1995 WL 562235 (Del. Super. Ct. 1995).......................................................... 112
`Wit Capital Grp., Inc. v. Benning,
`2005 WL 3754559 (Del. 2005) ......................................................................... 113
`Yencer Builders, Inc. v. Fabi,
`2010 WL 8250829 (Del. Super. Ct. 2010) ....................................................... 114
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
` 
`
`Tab 1
`Tab 1
`
`

`

`Abrahamsen v. ConocoPhillips Company, Not Reported in A.3d (2014)
`2014 WL 2884870
`
`2014 WL 2884870
`Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
`
`UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECK
`COURT RULES BEFORE CITING.
`
`Superior Court of Delaware
`
`Jarl Abrahamsen, et al., Plaintiffs,
`v.
`ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant.
`Jorn Andreassen, et al., Plaintiffs,
`v.
`ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant.
`Jan Aarsland, et al., Plaintiffs,
`v.
`ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant.
`Arne Aasen, et al., Plaintiffs,
`v.
`ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 10C–07–129 BEN, C.A. No.
`10C–07–130 BEN, C.A. No. 10C–07–
`131 BEN, C.A. No. 10C–07–132 BEN
`|
`Signed May 30, 2014
`
`ORDER
`
`JURDEN, J.
`
`*1 AND NOW, TO WIT, this 30th day of May, 2014,
`the Court having heard and duly considered Defendant's
`Motions to Dismiss and Plaintiffs' opposition thereto,
`
`IT APPEARS TO THE COURT THAT:
`
`four
`these
`in
`1. The 123 Plaintiffs named
`all Norwegian
`personal
`injury
`cases
`are
`citizens 1 and
`former employees of Phillips
`Petroleum Company Norway and/or ConocoPhillips
`Norway. 2 Defendant ConocoPhillips Company
`(“ConocoPhillips”), formerly known as Phillips
`Petroleum Company, 3 owned, controlled and/or
`operated the rigs, platforms and vessels in the North
`Sea upon which Plaintiffs worked. The Plaintiffs
`claim that they or their family members were injured
`
`as a result of exposure to toxic materials, including
`but not limited to, Benzene and Benzene-containing
`products such as petroleum products, solvents, and
`cleaning agents that caused injuries. 4 There is no
`allegation in the complaints that these exposures
`occurred anywhere but in Norway, and none of the
`Plaintiffs claim to have ever lived or worked in the
`United States.
`
`2. Plaintiffs originally filed these cases as a single
`class action suit in Cameron County, Texas. 5
`ConocoPhillips removed Holum to federal court
`under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
`jurisdiction. 6
`(“CAFA”) and
`federal question
`ConocoPhillips then moved to dismiss on forum
`non conveniens and international comity grounds. 7
`Before that motion was decided, Plaintiffs voluntarily
`dismissed Holum in June, 2009. 8
`
`3. On April 30, 2010, Plaintiff Jan Aarsland and 120
`other plaintiffs filed suit in this Court, captioned
`Aarsland, et al. v. ConocoPhillips Co., C.A. No.
`N10C–04–278 BEN. 9 ConocoPhillips moved to
`dismiss (on the same grounds as in Holum ), and,
`again, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case. 10
`
`4. Plaintiffs filed suit a third time, this time
`dividing their identically pleaded claims into four
`separately pleaded complaints. 11 On August 17,
`2010, ConocoPhillips timely removed these cases to
`the United States District Court for the District of
`Delaware (“District Court”) based on CAFA and
`federal question jurisdiction. 12 Following removal,
`ConocoPhillips moved to dismiss. The District Court
`granted ConocoPhillips' motion to dismiss based
`on forum non conveniens. 13 On appeal, the Third
`Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's
`decision and remanded the case to state court, finding
`that there was no federal jurisdiction. 14
`
`5. Defendant argues, inter alia, dismissal on forum
`non conveniens grounds is warranted here because
`Plaintiffs are foreign nationals whose claims lack
`any connection whatsoever with Delaware, and who
`have filed suit here even though they concede that
`an adequate forum for the resolution of their claims
`exists in Norway. Defendant maintains that the
`doctrine of forum non conveniens should be applied
`
` © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Abrahamsen v. ConocoPhillips Company, Not Reported in A.3d (2014)
`2014 WL 2884870
`
`to prohibit Plaintiffs from forum shopping and
`circumventing their own nation's fully available and
`competent legal system. 15
`
`6. Defendant further argues that, because these four
`suits are not “first filed” and Plaintiffs “clearly
`are forum shopping,” “their choice of forum is
`not entitled to the respect normally afforded under
`Delaware law” and the overwhelming hardship
`standard is inapplicable in this case. 16
`
`*2 7. These suits are not first filed. The prior actions
`filed by Plaintiffs and the instant four cases arise
`out of a “common nucleus of operative facts.” 17
`Where the Delaware action is not first filed, the policy
`that favors strong deference to a plaintiff's initial
`choice of forum “requires the Court freely to exercise
`its discretion in favor of staying or dismissing the
`Delaware action (the ‘McWane doctrine’).” 18
`
`8. Even assuming, arguendo, these four suits are “first
`filed,” for the reasons explained below, Defendant
`has established with the requisite particularity that
`it will face overwhelming hardship if these suits are
`litigated in Delaware.
`
`9. Application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens
`presupposes at least two forums in which the
`defendant is amenable to process, and the doctrine
`furnishes criteria for a choice between them. 19 The
`first step the Court must take in considering a
`forum non conveniens motion is to determine whether
`an alternative forum is available to hear the case.
`An alternative forum exists where the defendant is
`already subject to process. 20 It is undisputed that
`Norway constitutes an available alternative forum in
`which to litigate the case and that Norwegian trial
`courts have jurisdiction over the parties.
`
`10. Delaware's forum non conveniens jurisprudence is
`well established. When there is no issue of prior
`pendency of the same action in another jurisdiction,
`the analysis is guided by the “Cryo–Maid factors:” 21
`
`(1) relative ease of access to proof;
`
`(2) availability of compulsory process for witnesses;
`
`(3) possibility of viewing the premises;
`
`(4) whether the controversy is dependent upon the
`application of Delaware law, which the courts of
`this state more properly should decide than those
`of another jurisdiction;
`
`(5) the pendency or nonpendency of a similar action
`or actions in another jurisdiction; and
`
`(6) all other practical problems that would make the
`trial of the case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.
`
`11. For the Court to dismiss based on forum non
`is required
`conveniens grounds, the Defendant
`to establish the relevant Cryo–Maid factors with
`particularity. 22 As the Supreme Court recently
`reiterated in Martinez v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and
`Co., Inc.: 23
`
`A plaintiff's choice of forum should not be defeated
`except in the rare case where the defendant
`establishes,
`through
`factors,
`the Cryo–Maid
`overwhelming hardship and inconvenience. It is
`not enough that all of the Cryo-Maid factors may
`favor defendant. The trial court must consider the
`weight of those factors in the particular case and
`determine whether any or all of them truly cause
`both inconvenience and hardship.
`
`12. The overwhelming majority of evidence and proof
`necessary to litigate Plaintiffs' claims is located in
`Norway, and none is located in Delaware. 24 All
`Plaintiffs, their family members, friends, co-workers
`and treating physicians are in Norway. 25 All of the
`Plaintiffs' medical and employment records (many of
`which are in the possession of third-party witnesses
`such as treating physicians and hospitals) are in
`Norway. 26 ConocoPhillips Norway is the repository
`of the relevant employee records, the relevant safety
`documents and other related materials, and the
`place where the overwhelming number of witnesses
`work or worked. 27 It is possible that some of the
`relevant discoverable documents located in Norway
`may not be freely transferred for use in this litigation
`because the Norway Personal Data Act of 2000
`restricts the transfer of data to other countries
`without equivalent data protection regimes, provides
`for a data inspectorate to monitor application of
`safeguards and exceptions, and authorizes fines to
`
` © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Abrahamsen v. ConocoPhillips Company, Not Reported in A.3d (2014)
`2014 WL 2884870
`
`be imposed for inappropriate data transfers. 28 It
`is also possible that requiring Defendant to defend
`these claims in Delaware could place it at risk of
`running afoul of Norwegian law. 29 Defendant has
`demonstrated with particularity that these difficulties
`in accessing proof contribute substantially to its
`hardship.
`
`*3 13. ConocoPhillips will most likely have to
`subpoena third-party documents related to dozens
`of plaintiffs and hundreds of witnesses, and those
`subpoenas would need to proceed through the
`Hague Convention's procedures which would result
`in delay and added expense, particularly when
`there are 123 plaintiffs. 30 Moreover, Norway may
`not comply with ConocoPhillips document requests
`because Norway has adopted reservations to Hague
`Convention Article 23
`in that
`it will execute
`only those requests that specifically identify the
`documents sought. 31
`
`14. ConocoPhillips has no means of obtaining
`compulsory process for unwilling witnesses because
`those witnesses live in Norway. The parties have
`specifically preliminarily identified 470 witnesses.
`Not one is located in Delaware. This is far from
`a complete list. 171 out of 228 potential company-
`related witnesses are residents/citizens of Norway, or
`residents/citizens of other European countries, and
`none are within this Court's subpoena power. 32 Of
`the 245 identified Plaintiff-related witnesses, 241 are
`located in Norway, 4 are located in Spain, and the
`vast majority do not speak English. 33 The number
`of relevant non-party witnesses in Norway likely is
`much higher because, so far, less than half of the
`Plaintiffs have identified any witnesses other than
`themselves, and all Plaintiffs have reserved their
`right to disclose additional witnesses. 34 Defendant
`correctly notes that testimony from these witnesses
`will be crucial to ConocoPhillips' ability to defend the
`suit, and all these individuals are outside the Court's
`subpoena power under Rule 45 of Delaware Superior
`Court Rules of Civil Procedure. And, as Defendant
`correctly points out, even if these witnesses were
`willing to voluntarily travel to Delaware to testify, the
`“logistical nightmare (not to mention the financial
`burden) associated with procuring their testimony
`would be severe.” 35 Defendant has “shown with
`
`particularity that the location of third party critical
`witnesses imposes a heavy burden upon it to
`mount its defense through their cooperation and
`testimony.” 36
`
`15. Defendant points out that trying the case in
`Delaware would entirely eliminate the possibility
`of a view of the premises—the premises being the
`oil platforms where the alleged injuries occurred.
`According to Defendant, a lay fact finder “almost
`certainly will lack first-hand experience with such
`platforms, and a site visit would guide an
`understanding of their basic operations, as well as
`such site-specific phenomenon alleged in [P]laintiffs'
`complain.” 37 Because the exposures occurred years
`ago, it seems unlikely a view would be helpful. 38
`Moreover, given the state of technology with
`respect to videography, photography, and computer
`animation the Court does not find this factor that
`important.
`
`16. It seems likely that Norwegian law will control this
`dispute under the most significant relationship test
`for tort claims, as Chief Judge Sleet noted when he
`granted Defendant's forum non conveniens motion. 39
`Application and interpretation of Norwegian law
`would be complicated by, inter alia, the fact
`that Norway is a civil law jurisdiction and thus
`precedent is not always readily available. 40 If the
`case is litigated in Delaware it is likely the parties
`(and perhaps the Court) would need to retain
`Norwegian law experts and translators. The parties'
`Norwegian law experts would be required to travel
`thousands of miles and the travel expenses and
`fees would be substantial. As Defendant points out,
`unlike a straightforward personal injury case, these
`trials “will entail massive undertakings, both legal
`and factual, such that the extreme expense and
`complexity would impose an overwhelming hardship
`on ConocoPhillips.” 41
`
`*4 17. Litigating this action in Delaware would present
`many other practical problems. Because the case is
`not a class action, each Plaintiff will have to prove
`individual causation and damages. As noted above,
`in addition to the 123 Plaintiffs, the parties have
`preliminarily identified hundreds of other Norwegian
`witnesses. Many of these witnesses speak Norwegian
`and documents and medical records relevant to
`
` © 2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Abrahamsen v. ConocoPhillips Company, Not Reported in A.3d (2014)
`2014 WL 2884870
`
`their testimony will be in Norwegian. 42 Deposing
`and arranging travel to the U.S. for trial for the
`123 Plaintiffs and potentially hundreds of witnesses
`will involve arranging overseas travel, and require
`witnesses to miss work and other obligations for
`several days. The logistics and expense will be
`substantial. There is no guarantee the Norwegian
`witnesses will appear for trial. 43 The only connection
`between Delaware and these cases is the fact
`that ConocoPhillips and its two subsidiaries are
`incorporated here.
`
`18. In Martinez, Argentine nationals who claimed
`they were exposed to asbestos while working in
`textile plants located in Argentina filed suit against
`E.I. Du Pont de Nemours and Company, Inc. in
`Delaware. 44 As in Martinez, the Plaintiffs here are
`not residents of Delaware and the alleged injuries
`occurred in a foreign country. Under Delaware
`law, the presumption that the plaintiff's choice of
`forum should be respected is “not as strong in the
`case of a foreign national plaintiff as in the case
`of a plaintiff who resides in the forum.” 45 As in
`Martinez, the controversy here is not dependent
`upon the application of Delaware law, which the
`courts of this state should more properly decide than
`those of another jurisdiction. Rather, the opposite
`is true. This Court acknowledges that, as noted
`in Martinez, the “important and novel issues of
`other sovereigns are best determined by their courts
`where practicable.” 46 As in Martinez, here there
`are important, uncertain questions of foreign law.
`In this instance, those relate to the extensive and
`comprehensive regulatory and legislative guidelines
`and mandates concerning health, safety, and the
`environment related to the petroleum industry in
`Norway. The parties have a right to have those
`issues decided by the court whose law is at stake.
`Norway is better suited to decide those complex legal
`issues than this Court. The Defendant's interest in
`obtaining an authoritative ruling from the relevant
`foreign court on the legal issues upon which liability
`and damages hinge, as distinguished from a non-
`authoritative ruling by this Court, weigh heavily in
`favor of dismissing this action. 47
`
`19. After carefully considering the Cryo–Maid factors,
`the Court is satisfied that the Defendant has met the
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`high burden of showing with particularity that the
`burden of litigating in this forum is so severe as to
`result in overwhelming hardship to the Defendant if
`the lawsuit proceeds in Delaware.
`
`See Hr'g Tr. (“Tr.”) 5–6, Oct. 11, 2013 (Trans. ID
`54438359).
`
`These companies are wholly owned