Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs, Ecuadorian members of a fishing boat, sued the United States for damages that resulted from the United States Coast Guard's ("Coast Guard") stop of plaintiffs' boat in international waters near the Galapagos Islands under suspicion of plaintiffs' involvement with smuggling drugs. The Coast Guard performed tests on plaintiffs' boat that yielded inconclusive results and the Ecuadorian government conducted further tests which resulted in no contraband and no charges filed against plaintiffs. At issue was whether the United States waived its sovereign immunity under numerous sources. The court held that non-congressional sources were not acts of Congress and did not effect a waiver of sovereign immunity. The court also held that the Military Claims Act, Alien Tort Statute, and a bilateral treaty concerning the Air Force base at Manta, Ecuador did not waive sovereign immunity. The court further held that the Public Vessels Act ("PVA"), Suits in Admiralty Act, and Federal Tort Claims Act provided waivers of sovereign immunity. The court finally held that if a suit falls within the scope of the PVA, 46 U.S.C. 31102, plaintiffs must meet the reciprocity requirement of the PVA regardless of the type of claim they assert. Therefore, the court vacated and remanded to give the parties and the district court additional opportunity to determine whether reciprocity exists under Ecuadorian Law.

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of their complaint on forum non conveniens grounds where plaintiffs developed eye infections after surgery in Mexico and initially brought suit in the Central District of California. At issue was whether the district court erred in finding that Mexico was an available alternative forum by not placing conditions on the dismissal of the case. The court held that, based on the evidence before it at the time, the district court did not err in its initial forum non conveniens analysis by not imposing return conditions. The court also held that, in light of the subsequent changes in the factual circumstances, a new forum non conveniens analysis was compelled and therefore, the court vacated and remanded the case.