ÿWPC ¯–,=QCBð§Ë®yIBò§Rü†R)HUg‚:ƒ‘œ‰o>³®çI%Eænb¿™~,xc…;°Ý¥i¢`¸pj[9ᇈ1½È¡)xWzV370ðîÃu1öš9R¤›#œÏ¸KS‘~Ìð1v¹ø”¡f˜Ñù”Ò¥\å'Iƒôq‘¾ÊµÇ  6¸Qº†oÑx”Ü´ÿ'Oçô÷¯©PÙô64‰ùÕT'LD9÷½0™ Ú„…¯¡<*êƒ ˜ØÞŒÜטVDê {w#oÜŒA­ôàj?&鯥¸÷˜qñÒÍ»@Ï“ g«KÞÒ¶ /îÊGTŸüùG˜ã5uØó˜p/ØÉ‚XL£rWQ’ÀfbBÛ“2âˆÀcÛóÒcÉp«&dYŽi °{åVØÑâ(É-)[»Ð“8éVh7ÁT ‹=>ÈF«,¹¦9D¬~,¼Émdz0³Òuw¹ñœrQÕû¨kì0œ[×-Œ„–‡0 ßÐÿ~võ}íTՋ¡z8½ö‰²{[îrc”sÝ&ûGÓó4,"hóù¹•·gü·âv‡ï<¤5ƒù²v)n¨ÞíG똋¤ý£»hqÄå¼ÇÍ¡ùb#É\ %% UN+ 0ˆy UN ^ O w[ z_ ÒÙ 4« ¿ Î mÐ Æç Æ­ ÆsÆ9 0DÿNCËEEEb 0ë B 0¤" D3Æ D-ù 0K&& ASqÆÄ 0¤Š 0D. A«r˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular(`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularƒ/Ï  ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptqdj/ê:i¢×+003|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ÁÝ ƒRª$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïÍò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôà ` àGeneral€Motors€is€no€longer€a€defendant€in€this€matter.- ù-(|G2ª$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€JÕ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôïÍò»»Ô d(|3‰f$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€JÕ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3‰f$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€JÕ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€JÕ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼JÕ»»»ÔÑ8€)XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îPÔJÕÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼JÕ»îîPÔ #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓJULY€8,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X)X»¼JÕÔÌò òÔ#†¼JÕ»XX)ñ#ÔIN€RE:€BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE€and€Ð úJ ÐFORD€MOTOR€COMPANY€TIRE€Ô_ÔLITIGATOINÔ_Ôòòóó€òòóóÔ‡X)X»¼JÕÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òExtraordinary€Appeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€01MD„2;€01MD„3€€€€€€Thomas€W.€Brothers,€JudgeÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„02204„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R10„CV€„€Filed€December€3,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓÔ‡X)XXX)ÔThis€extraordinary€appeal€arises€from€the€lower€courtððs€denial€of€Appellantsðð€motion€to€dismissÐ ŒÜ Ðunder€the€doctrine€€òòforum€non€Ô_ÔconveniensÔ_Ô.óó€€The€case€is€comprised€of€thirty„one€lawsuits,€based€onÐ xÈ Ðautomobile€accidents€in€Mexico€involving€Ford€and€Firestone€products,€that€are€consolidated€inÐ d´ ÐDavidson€County,€Tennessee€for€pretrial€purposes.€€Using€the€approach€set€forth€by€the€TennesseeÐ P  ÐSupreme€Court€in€òòÔ_ÔZurickÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔInmanÔ_Ôóó,€the€trial€court€found€that€dismissal€of€the€case€was€not€necessaryòòóó.€Ð <Œ ÐFor€the€following€reasons,€we€reverse€the€ruling€of€the€lower€court.Ð (x ÐÔ#†X)XXX)!#ÔÔ#†¼JÕ»XX)¼#ÔÔ‡X)X»¼JÕÔÌÓÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€10,€Extraordinary€Appeal;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Court€Reversedó óÐ ì< ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼JÕ»àX)¤#ÔÔ‡X)X.¼JÕÔAlan€E.€Ô_ÔHighersÔ_Ô,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòDavid€R.€Farmer,€J.,óó€and€òòDonÐ Ä ÐR.€Ash,€S.J.óó,€joined.Ð ° ÐÌJames€F.€Sanders,€A.€Scott€Ross,€Nashville,€TN;€Colin€Smith,€Charles€Ô_ÔJoernÔ_Ô,€Chicago,€IL,€€forÐ ˆØ ÐAppellant€FirestoneÐ t Ä ÐÌStephen€A.€Ô_ÔMarcumÔ_Ô,€Huntsville,€TN;€Jonathan€Cole,€Nashville,€TN,€for€Appellant€Ford€MotorÐ L"œ! ÐCompanyÐ 8#ˆ" ÐÌSteven€A.€Riley,€Salvador€M.€Hernandez,€Nashville,€TN,€for€Appellant€Bridgestone€CorporationÐ %` $ ÐÌSteve€North,€Madison,€TN;€Mary€Parker,€Nashville,€TN,€for€AppelleesÐ è&8"& ÐÌÌÓE ÓÌò òÌÌÌÐ \-¬(-ý ÐÔ_ÔOPINIONó óÔ#†¼JÕ»XX)t #ÔÔ‡X)X»¼JÕÔÐ ° ÐÌÌÓ  Óò òÔ‡X)XXX)Ôà@ÿÿìàFacts€and€Procedural€Historyó óˆÐ tÄ ÐÌà  àThe€present€matter€is€comprised€of€some€thirty„one€lawsuits€arising€from€automobileÐ L œ Ðaccidents€that€occurred€in€Mexico.€€Each€accident€involved€steel€belted€radial€tires€manufactured€byÐ 8 ˆ ÐBridgestone/Firestone,€Inc.€(ð ðFirestoneðð)€and€installed€on€Ford€Motor€Company€(ð ðFordðð)€or€GeneralÐ $ t ÐMotors׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€sport€utility€vehicles.€€The€accidents€occurred€in€at€least€eleven€different€states€throughoutÐ  ` ÐMexico,€including€Jalisco,€Nayarit,€San€Luis€Potosi,€Mexico€City,€Guanajanto,€Veracruz,€Guerrero,Ð ü L  ÐNuevo€Leon,€Sonora,€Tabasco,€and€Aguascalientes.€€In€each€case,€the€vehicles€and€tires€wereÐ è 8  Ðpurchased€and€serviced€exclusively€in€Mexico;€the€medical€treatment€and€the€investigationsÐ Ô$  Ðoccasioned€by€the€accidents€were€conducted€in€Mexico;€and€all€witnesses€of€the€accidents€reside€inÐ À  ÐMexico.€€The€defendants,€Ford€and€Firestone,€are€business€concerns€that€operate€on€a€global€scale.€Ð ¬ü  ÐFord€maintains€its€headquarters€in€Dearborn,€Michigan,€while€Firestone€keeps€its€principle€place€ofÐ ˜è  Ðbusiness€in€Nashville,€Tennessee.€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àThe€plaintiffs,€all€of€whom€are€citizens€and€residents€of€Mexico,€assert€that€defects€in€theÐ \¬ ÐFirestone€tires,€alone€or€in€conjunction€with€an€alleged€propensity€of€Ford€vehicles€to€roll€over,Ð H˜ Ðcaused€the€accidents.€€The€plaintiffs€assert€claims€for€negligence,€strict€liability,€and€breach€of€theÐ 4„ ÐTennessee€Consumer€Protection€Act.€€They€also€assert€a€claim€for€civil€conspiracy,€alleging€that€FordÐ  p Ðand€Firestone€conspired€to€conceal€the€defective€nature€of€their€products.€€The€plaintiffs€filed€theirÐ  \ Ðvarious€actions€in€Davidson€County,€which€constitutes€Firestoneððs€principle€place€of€business,€andÐ øH Ðthe€cases€were€consolidated€for€pre„trial€proceedings€on€May€21,€2001.€€During€the€course€of€theseÐ ä4 Ðproceedings,€Ford€and€Firestone€moved€for€dismissal€based€upon€the€doctrine€of€òòforum€nonÐ Ð  Ðconveniensóó.€€They€maintained€that€Mexico€would€provide€a€preferable€forum€in€which€to€conductÐ ¼  Ðthe€instant€cases.€€The€lower€court€denied€the€motions,€making€two€determinative€findings.€€First,Ð ¨ø Ðthe€court€found€that€Mexico€does€not€provide€a€ð ðtruly€adequate€alternative€forum€that€would€allowÐ ”ä Ðthe€fair€disposition€of€these€cases.ðð€€The€court€then€found,€in€the€alternative,€that€the€defendantsÐ €Ð Ðfailed€to€demonstrate€that€the€relevant€public€and€private€factors€òòóówarrant€dismissal€of€the€cases.€Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àFord€and€Firestone€then€requested€permission€of€the€lower€court€to€seek€an€interlocutoryÐ D!” Ðappeal,€which€the€court€denied.€This€Court€thereafter€granted€the€defendantsðð€application€forÐ 0"€  Ðextraordinary€appeal€pursuant€to€Rule€10€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Appellate€Procedure.€€Ð #l! ÐÌà@ìì'ìàò òIssuesó óˆÐ ô$D # ÐÌà  àFord€and€Firestone€raise€the€following€issues,€as€we€perceive€them,€for€our€review.Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àI.à0 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€inquiring€into€the€ð ðadequacyðð€of€an€alternative€forumÐ ¤(ô#' Ðas€part€of€its€òòforum€non€conveniensóó€analysis;Ð)à$(` (#` (# Ðà  àII.à0 ` àWhether€the€trial€court€erred€by€denying€Appellantsðð€motion€to€dismiss€under€theÐ ° Ðdoctrine€of€òòforum€non€conveniensóó.Ðœì` (#` (# ÐÌò òÓ  ÓStandard€of€Reviewó óÐ tÄ ÐÌÓ²Óà  àThe€application€of€òòforum€non€conveniensóóis€a€matter€of€discretion€with€the€trial€court.€€OurÐ L œ Ðreview€on€appeal€is€limited€to€whether€there€has€been€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€òòZurick€v.€Inmanóó,€426Ð 8 ˆ ÐS.W.2d€767,€772€(Tenn.€1968).€€ð ðJudicial€discretion€when€used€as€a€guide€for€judicial€action€ððmeansÐ $ t Ða€sound€discretion€.€.€.€a€discretion€exercised€not€arbitrarily€or€willfully,€but€with€regard€to€what€isÐ  ` Ðright€and€equitable€under€the€circumstances€and€the€law,€and€directed€by€the€reason€and€conscienceÐ ü L  Ðof€the€judge€to€a€just€result.ðððð€òòPackage€Express€Center,€Inc.€v.€Snider€Foods,€Inc.óó,€788€S.W.2d€561,Ð è 8  Ð564€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989)€(quoting€òòLangnes€v.€Greenóó,€282€U.S.€531,€541€(1931)).€€In€the€contextÐ Ô$  Ðof€òòforum€non€conveniensóó,€an€abuse€of€discretion€arises€when€the€lower€court€fails€to€review€andÐ À  Ðbalance€the€private€and€public€factors€that€guide€any€consideration€of€the€doctrine.€€òòPiper€AircraftÐ ¬ü  ÐCo.€v.€Reynoóó,€454€U.S.€235,€257€(1981);òò€Gulf€Oil€Corp.€v.€Gilbertóó,€330€U.S.€501,€507„08€(1947);Ð ˜è  ÐòòRoyal€Bed€&€Spring€Co.€v.€Famossul€Industria€e€Comercio€de€Moveis€Ltda.óó,€906€F.2d€45,€47„48€(1stòòóóÐ „Ô  ÐCir.€1990);€òòGates€Learjet€Corp.€v.€Jensenóó,€743€F.2d€1325,€1334€(9thòòóó€Cir.€1984);€òòLa€Seguridad€v.Ð pÀ ÐTransytur€Lineóó,€707€F.2d€1304,€1308€(11thòòóó€Cir.€1983);€òòPackage€Express€Center,€Inc.€v.€SniderÐ \¬ ÐFoods,€Inc.óó,€788€S.W.2d€561,€564„65€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989);€òòSmith€v.€Priority€Transportation,€Inc.óó,Ð H˜ ÐNo.€02A01„9203„CV„00074,€1993€WL€29021€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€9,€1993).Ð 4„ ÐÌò òÓ  ÓLaw€and€Analysisó óÐ  \ ÐÌÓC$Óà  àThe€seminal€Tennessee€case€on€òòforum€non€conveniensóóis€òòZurick€v.€Inmanóó,€426€S.W.2d€767Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€1968).€€In€that€case,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€set€out€a€two„part€analysis€for€determiningÐ Ð  Ðwhether€to€apply€òòforum€non€conveniensóó.€€A€court€must€first€ensure€that€ð ðthere€is€at€least€one€forumÐ ¼  Ðother€than€the€forum€chosen€where€the€plaintiff€may€bring€his€cause€of€action.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€771„72.€€IfÐ ¨ø Ðsuch€a€forum€is€available,€the€court€must€then€consider€a€series€of€public€and€private€factors€thatÐ ”ä Ðguide€the€courtððs€decision€on€whether€dismissal€is€appropriate.€€òòIdóó.€at€772.€€These€factors€wereÐ €Ð Ðinitially€set€forth€by€the€United€States€Supreme€Court€in€òòGulf€Oil€Corp.€v.€Gilbertóó,€330€U.S.€501Ð l¼ Ð(1947),€and€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€in€òòZurickóó.€òò€Idóó.€€The€two€issues€on€appeal€focusÐ X ¨ Ðon€the€lower€courtððs€treatment€of€each€step€of€the€òòZurickóóanalysis.Ð D!” ÐÌà@¬¬ìàò òI.€Available€Alternative€Forumó ó€ˆÐ #l! ÐÌà  àFord€and€Firestone€contend€that€the€lower€court€erred€when€it€considered€the€ð ðadequacyðð€ofÐ ø$H # ÐMexico€as€an€alternative€forum,€because€such€an€inquiry€has€never€been€part€of€the€òòZurickóóanalysis.€Ð ä%4!$ ÐThe€Appellants€maintain,€instead,€that€òòZurickóóonly€requires€a€court€to€inquire€into€the€ð ðavailabilityððÐ Ð& "% Ðof€an€alternative€forum.€€Ford€and€Firestone€also€argue€that,€should€an€adequacy€requirement€beÐ ¼' #& Ðupheld,€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€Mexico€to€be€inadequate.Ð ¨(ø#' ÐThe€lower€court€specifically€ruled:Ð ”)ä$( Ðâ âÐ €*Ð%) ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓThe€first€step€in€the€analysis€of€a€òòforum€non€conveniensóódismissal€is€to€determineÐ ° Ðâ âwhether€there€exists€an€adequate€and€available€alternative€forum€for€resolution€of€aÐ œì Ðdispute€.€.€.€The€defendants€have€not€convinced€this€Court€that€the€courts€in€MexicoÐ ˆØ Ðprovide€a€truly€adequate€alternative€forum€that€would€allow€the€fair€disposition€ofÐ tÄ Ðthese€cases.€Ð `° ÐÌÓ Xà+ÓÓ XÒ+ÓWe€disagree€with€the€lower€courtððs€characterization€of€the€applicable€analysis.€€The€relevant€inquiryÐ 8 ˆ Ðencompasses€the€availability€of€an€alternative€forum,€but€not€its€adequacy.òòóóÐ $ t ÐÌà  àWe€begin€our€discussion€with€the€plain€language€of€the€òòZurickóó€decision.€€In€that€case,€theÐ ü L  ÐTennessee€Supreme€Court€held€that€ð ð[t]he€doctrine€[of€òòforum€non€conveniensóó]€presupposes€there€isÐ è 8  Ðat€least€one€forum€other€than€the€forum€chosen€where€the€plaintiff€may€bring€his€cause€of€action,€andÐ Ô$  Ðit€is€necessary€the€trial€court€determine€such€other€forum€is€òòavailableóó.ðð€€òòIdóó.€(emphasis€added).€€TheÐ À  Ðplain€language€of€this€holding€contemplates€the€availability€of€an€alternative€forum,€but€makes€noÐ ¬ü  Ðmention€of€adequacy.€€Thus,€the€plain€language€of€òòZurickóó€does€not€support€the€lower€courtððs€use€ofÐ ˜è  Ðan€adequacy€requirement.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àIn€addition,€no€Tennessee€court€has€previously€used€an€adequacy€requirement€when€applyingÐ \¬ Ðor€interpreting€òòZurickóó.€€Instead,€courts€have€limited€their€inquiries€to€the€availability€of€alternativeÐ H˜ Ðfora.€€òòSee,€e.g.,€Guardsmark,€Inc.€v.€Borg„Warner€Protective€Servicesóó,€No.€2A01„9409„CH„00207,Ð 4„ Ð1998€WL€959664€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€4,€1998);€òòShoneyððs€Inc.€v.€Chic€Can€Enters.,€Ltd.óó,€922Ð  p ÐS.W.2d€530€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòCummings,€Inc.€v.€H.I.€Mayaguez,€Inc.óó,€No.€01„A„01„9306„CH„Ð  \ Ð00258,€1993€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€643€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€1,€1993);€òòSmith€v.€Priority€Transp.,Ð øH ÐInc.óó,€No.€02A01„9203„CV„00074,€1993€WL€29021€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€9,€1993);€òòPackageÐ ä4 ÐExpress€Ctr.,€Inc.€v.€Snider€Foods,€Inc.óó,€788€S.W.2d€561€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1989);€òòBourland€v.Ð Ð  ÐBourlandóó,€1988€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€481€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€July€28,€1988);€òòChapman€Chem.€Co.Ð ¼  Ðv.€Reichhold€Chems.,€Inc.óó,€1987€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€April€24,€1987);€òòRaja€v.Ð ¨ø ÐSoundranayagamóó,€1984€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€3432€at€*1€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Oct.€12,€1984).€€Nor€can€itÐ ”ä Ðbe€said€that€the€analysis€of€availability€in€these€cases€implicitly€takes€into€consideration€the€adequacyÐ €Ð Ðof€the€remedies€offered€by€the€alternative€forum.€€Instead,€the€analysis€typically€focuses€on€whetherÐ l¼ Ðthe€cause€of€action€would€be€barred€by€the€applicable€statute€of€limitations€in€the€other€forum€orÐ X ¨ Ðwhether€the€defendant€would€be€amenable€to€service€thereinòòóó.€€òòPackage€Expressóó,€788€S.W.2d€at€563.€Ð D!” ÐThus,€a€plaintiffððs€ability€to€bring€suit€is,€by€itself,€determinative€of€the€issue€of€€availability.€€ThereÐ 0"€  Ðis€no€need€to€consider€the€nature€of€remedies€afforded€by€the€alternative€forum.€€In€the€present€matter,Ð #l! Ðthe€record€indicates€that€both€Ford€and€Firestone€have€consented€to€waive€any€jurisdictional€defenses,Ð $X" Ðincluding€any€applicable€statutes€of€limitations,€if€plaintiffs€file€suit€in€Mexico.€€As€such,€the€courtsÐ ô$D # Ðof€Mexico€provide€an€available€alternative€forum.€€€ò òó óÐ à%0!$ ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€there€is€no€Tennessee€authority€that€supports€the€lower€courtððs€inclusion€of€anÐ ¸'#& Ðadequacy€requirement€in€its€òòforum€non€conveniensóó€analysis,€and€the€record€indicates€that€the€courtsÐ ¤(ô#' Ðof€Mexico€are€available€to€adjudicate€the€instant€cases.€€We,€therefore,€reverse€the€holding€of€theÐ )à$( Ðlower€court€on€this€issue€and€turn€our€attention€to€the€next€step€of€the€òòZurick€óóanalysis.€€òòò òó óóó€Ð |*Ì%) Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÐ h+¸&* Ðà@ÎÎìàò òII.€€The€òòGilbertóó€Factors€€ó ó€ˆÐ ° ÐÌà  àThe€next€step€of€the€òòZurickóó€analysis€entails€various€private€and€public€factors€that€must€beÐ ŒÜ Ðconsidered€by€a€court€when€determining€whether€to€dismiss€a€case€upon€òòforum€nonÐ xÈ Ðconveniensóógrounds.€€These€factors€were€adopted€by€the€òòZurickóócourt€from€the€United€States€SupremeÐ d´ ÐCourtððs€decision€in€òòGulf€Oil€Corp.€v.€Gilbertóó,€330€U.S.€501€(1947).€€The€factors€may€be€divided€intoÐ P   Ðtwo€categories:€those€of€private€interest€and€those€of€public€interest.€€If€the€court€finds€that€the€privateÐ < Œ Ðinterests€of€the€litigants€favor€litigation€in€another€forum,€then€dismissal€is€appropriate.€€òòSee€Gilbertóó,Ð ( x Ð330€U.S.€at€508;€òòZurickóó,€426€S.W.2d€at€772.€€If€the€private€factors€counsel€against€dismissal,€thenÐ  d Ðthe€court€considers€various€factors€involving€public€interests.€€If€these€factors€weigh€in€favor€of€theÐ  P  Ðmoving€party,€then€the€court€may€dismiss€the€case.€€òòSee€Gilbertóó,€330€U.S.€at€508;€òòGonzalez€v.Ð ì <  ÐChrysler€Corp.óó,€301€F.3d€377,€380€(5òòthóó€Cir.€2002);€òòZurickóó,€426€S.W.2d€at€772.€€Ð Ø(  ÐÌà  àThe€lower€court€found€that€the€relevant€factors€do€not€favor€dismissal€of€the€instant€cases.€Ð °  ÐFord€and€Firestone€contend€that€the€lower€court€erred€in€its€conclusion.€€We€will€analyze€the€lowerÐ œì  Ðcourtððs€findings€in€the€context€of€each€set€of€factors.Ð ˆØ  ÐÌà@±± ìàò òA.€Private€Interestsó óˆÐ `° ÐÌà  àThe€private€interests€enumerated€in€òòGilbertóó,€and€adopted€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ 8ˆ Ðin€òòZurickóó,€include:€Ð $t ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓthe€relative€ease€of€access€to€sources€of€proof;€availability€of€compulsory€process€forÐ üL Ðattendance€of€unwilling,€and€the€cost€of€obtaining€attendance€of€willing,€witnesses;Ð è8 Ðpossibility€of€view€of€premises,€if€view€would€be€appropriate€to€the€action;€and€allÐ Ô$ Ðother€practical€problems€that€make€trial€of€a€case€easy,€expeditious€and€inexpensive.€Ð À ÐThere€may€also€be€questions€as€to€the€enforcibility€of€a€judgment€if€one€is€obtained.Ð ¬ü ÐÓ XêDÓÓ XÜDÓÌòòZurickóó,€426€S.W.2d€at€772€(quoting€òòGilbertóó,€330€U.S.€at€508).€€The€lower€courtððs€decision€seems€toÐ „Ô Ðrely€in€large€part€upon€these€private€factors.€€This€is€evident€from€the€courtððs€finding€that€ð ð[a]mongÐ pÀ Ðthe€more€important€factors€are€the€cost€of€litigation€and€access€to€evidentiary€proof,ðð€both€of€whichÐ \ ¬ Ðwere€found€by€the€court€to€favor€a€Tennessee€forum.€€Specifically,€the€lower€court€found€that€theÐ H!˜ Ðcosts€of€translating€technical€documents€to€Spanish€and€the€relative€problems€in€obtaining€witnessÐ 4"„  Ðtestimony€in€either€possible€forum€counseled€against€dismissal.€€We€cannot€say€that€this€findingÐ  #p! Ðconstitutes€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€The€trials€promise€to€be€costly,€time„consuming,€and€difficult€forÐ  $\" Ðthe€litigants€regardless€of€whether€they€are€held€in€Tennessee€or€Mexico.€€The€lower€court€was€withinÐ ø$H # Ðits€discretion€to€find€that€the€private€interests€fail€to€support€dismissal€on€òòforum€non€conveniensóóÐ ä%4!$ Ðgrounds.Ð Ð& "% Ðà@"ìàò òB.€Public€Factorsó óˆÐ ¼' #& ÐÌà  àThe€public€factors€enumerated€in€òòGilbertóó€and€adopted€in€Tennessee€in€the€òòZurickóó€decisionÐ ”)ä$( Ðâ âare€as€follows:Ð €*Ð%) ÐÓ XÓÓ XÓAdministrative€difficulties€follow€for€courts€when€litigation€is€piled€up€in€congestedÐ ° Ðâ âcenters€instead€of€being€handled€at€its€origin.€€Jury€duty€is€a€burden€that€ought€not€toÐ œì Ðbe€imposed€upon€the€people€of€a€community€which€has€no€relation€to€the€litigation.€Ð ˆØ ÐIn€cases€which€touch€the€affairs€of€many€persons,€there€is€reason€for€holding€the€trialÐ tÄ Ðin€their€view€and€reach€rather€than€in€remote€parts€of€the€country€where€they€can€learnÐ `° Ðof€it€by€report€only.€€There€is€a€local€interest€in€having€localized€controversiesÐ L œ Ðdecided€at€home.€€There€is€an€appropriateness,€too,€in€having€the€trial€of€a€diversityÐ 8 ˆ Ðcase€in€a€forum€that€is€at€home€with€the€state€law€that€must€govern€the€case,€ratherÐ $ t Ðthan€having€a€court€in€some€other€forum€untangle€problems€in€conflict€of€laws,€andÐ  ` Ðin€law€foreign€to€itself.Ð ü L  ÐÌÓ X¨LÓÓ XšLÓòòZurickóó,€426€S.W.2d€at€772€(quoting€òòGilbertóó,€330€U.S.€at€508).€The€lower€courtððs€decision€seems€toÐ Ô$  Ðplace€less€emphasis€on€these€public€factors€than€it€did€with€the€private€interests.€€The€court€didÐ À  Ðaddress€a€few€of€the€public€interests€in€passing,€however.€€Specifically,€the€lower€court€found€thatÐ ¬ü  Ðthe€application€of€foreign€law,€if€necessary,€would€not€present€a€formidable€obstacle;€that€judicialÐ ˜è  Ðresources€would€not€be€strained€by€trying€these€cases€in€Tennessee;€and€that€the€plaintiffsðð€allegationsÐ „Ô  Ðof€conspiratorial€activity€in€Davidson€County€provide€a€local€interest€that€strongly€supports€trial€inÐ pÀ Ðthis€forum.€€We€find€that€the€lower€court€failed€to€properly€evaluate€and€balance€the€relevant€publicÐ \¬ Ðpolicy€factors,€which€strongly€counsel€dismissal€of€the€instant€cases€in€favor€of€Mexico.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àThe€lower€court€erred€in€three€respects€regarding€the€public€interest€factors.€€First,€the€courtÐ  p Ðfailed€to€give€proper€consideration€to€the€difficulties€posed€by€the€application€of€Mexican€law.€€TheÐ  \ Ðlower€court€merely€stated€that€ð ðthe€application€of€foreign€law€in€these€cases,€if€required,€does€notÐ øH Ðpresent€such€a€formidable€obstacle€as€to€require€dismissal.ðð€€We€disagree.Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àWe€note,€as€an€initial€matter,€that€Mexican€law€will€almost€certainly€be€the€controllingÐ ¼  Ðsubstantive€law€in€these€cases.€€Tennessee€choice„of„law€principles€were€most€recently€updated€inÐ ¨ø ÐòòHataway€v.€McKinleyóó,€830€S.W.2d€53€(Tenn.€1992).€€In€that€case,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÐ ”ä Ðadopted€the€ð ðmost€significant€relationshipðð€approach€enumerated€by€the€Restatement€(Second)€ofÐ €Ð ÐConflict€of€Laws.€€òòIdóó.€at€54.€€According€to€this€theory,€the€law€of€the€jurisdiction€where€the€injuryÐ l¼ Ðor€accident€occurred€will€apply€unless€another€jurisdiction€has€a€more€significant€relationship€to€theÐ X ¨ Ðlitigation.€€òòIdóó.€at€59.€€In€the€present€matter,€the€accidents€and€injuries€all€occurred€in€Mexico.€€Thus,Ð D!” ÐMexican€law€will€apply€unless€another€jurisdiction€has€a€more€significant€relationship€to€theÐ 0"€  Ðlitigation.€€Tennessee€cannot€be€said€to€have€a€more€significant€relationship,€nor€can€any€otherÐ #l! Ðjurisdiction.€€Tennesseeððs€only€link€to€the€litigation€is€Firestoneððs€maintenance€of€its€principal€placeÐ $X" Ðof€business€in€Davidson€County€and€the€conspiratorial€activities€that€allegedly€took€place€therein.€Ð ô$D # ÐMexico€has€more€numerous,€and€more€significant,€links€to€the€instant€cases.€€It€is€the€site€of€theÐ à%0!$ Ðaccidents,€the€residence€of€all€plaintiffs,€and€the€center€of€the€relationships€between€all€parties.€Ð Ì&"% ÐTennesseeððs€tenuous€links€to€the€litigation€are€simply€insufficient€to€overcome€the€default€rule€thatÐ ¸'#& ÐMexico,€as€the€situs€of€the€accidents€at€issue,€will€provide€the€applicable€law.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌà  àWe€must€now€evaluate€the€difficulties€that€will€arise€from€the€application€of€Mexican€law€byÐ |*Ì%) ÐTennessee€courts.€€The€relevant€rule€in€a€òòforum€non€conveniensóó€analysis€is€that€ð ðthe€application€ofÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€laws€of€another€state€becomes€a€factor€when€it€is€shown€that€the€laws€of€the€foreign€state,Ð ° Ðapplicable€to€the€case,€are€so€materially€different€from€our€own€that€their€application€would€presentÐ œì Ðdifficulty€to€the€court.ðð€€òòZurickóó,€426€S.W.2d€at€774;€òòSmith€v.€Priority€Transp.,€Inc.óó,€No.€02A01„9203„Ð ˆØ ÐCV„00074,€1993€WL€29021€at€*4€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€9,€1993).€€There€can€be€little€doubt€that€theÐ tÄ Ðlaws€of€Mexico€are€materially€different€from€those€of€Tennessee.€€Mexico€follows€a€civil€lawÐ `° Ðapproach,€rather€than€our€own€common€law€one.€€This€means€that€all€disputes€will€be€decided€byÐ L œ Ðreference€to€specific€written€statutes,€rather€than€common€law€doctrines,€which€often€admit€of€moreÐ 8 ˆ Ðflexible€interpretation.€€€If€Tennessee€courts€were€to€try€the€instant€cases,€they€would€be€forced,€asÐ $ t Ðan€initial€matter,€to€obtain€reliable€English€translations€of€the€relevant€Mexican€statutes,€which€areÐ  ` Ðwritten€in€Spanish.€€The€interpretation€of€unfamiliar€statutes€is€difficult€enough€without€the€addedÐ ü L  Ðburden€of€deciphering€what€the€statutes€state€on€their€very€face.€€The€translation€process€would€likelyÐ è 8  Ðrely€upon€competing€expert€affidavits€and€testimony€proffered€by€the€parties.€€Other€courts€haveÐ Ô$  Ðrecognized€the€undesirability€of€having€to€engage€in€a€battle€of€experts€just€to€determine€the€plainÐ À  Ðlanguage€of€the€applicable€lawòòóó.€€òòSeguros€Commercial€Americas€S.A.€v.€Am.€President€Lines€Ltd.óó,€933Ð ¬ü  ÐF.€Supp.€1301,€1311€(S.D.€Tex.€1996).€€The€problem€is€also€exacerbated€in€the€instant€matter€by€theÐ ˜è  Ðsheer€multiplicity€of€statutes€that€Tennessee€courts€will€be€forced€to€interpret.€€In€Mexico,€substantiveÐ „Ô  Ðlegal€issues€regarding€personal€injury€cases€are€controlled€by€the€law€of€the€state€where€the€tortiousÐ pÀ Ðacts€take€place,€and€each€state€has€a€separate€civil€code.€€In€the€present€cases,€the€record€indicates€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€accidents€occurred€in€at€least€eleven€different€Mexican€states.€€It€follows,€then,€that€at€least€elevenÐ H˜ Ðdifferent€sources€of€statutory€authority€would€have€to€be€interpreted€by€Tennessee€courts.€€ThisÐ 4„ Ðpromises€to€be€an€arduous€and€time„consuming€process€in€light€of€the€protracted€battle€of€experts€thatÐ  p Ðhas€already€occurred€during€pretrial€proceedings€over€fundamental€aspects€of€Mexican€civilÐ  \ Ðprocedure.€€Under€such€circumstances,€it€is€better€to€allow€the€foreign€jurisdiction,€well„versed€inÐ øH Ðits€own€law,€to€try€the€matter.€€òòSee€Ford€v.€Exxonóó,€319€F.3d€1302€(11thòòóó€Cir.€2003);€òòMagnin€v.Ð ä4 ÐTeledyne€Contððl€Motorsóó,€91€F.3d€1424€(11thòòóó€Cir.€1996);€òòDowling€v.€Richardson„Merrell,€Inc.óó,€727Ð Ð  ÐF.2d€608€(6thòòóó€Cir.€1984);€òòSegurosóó,€933€F.€Supp.€at€1314.€Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àThe€lower€court€also€erred€when€it€failed€to€consider€the€burden€posed€by€jury€duty€upon€theÐ ”ä Ðcitizens€of€Davidson€County.€€As€already€stated,€the€trial€of€these€cases€will€involve€the€civil€codesÐ €Ð Ðof€at€least€eleven€different€Mexican€states.€€This€means€that€the€cases€would€not€likely€beÐ l¼ Ðconsolidated€into€a€single€action€for€trial,€given€the€substantial€likelihood€of€jury€confusion€arisingÐ X ¨ Ðfrom€the€multiplicity€of€statutory€schemes.€€It€follows€that€multiple€juries€would€have€to€beÐ D!” Ðempaneled,€increasing€the€burden€upon€the€community€of€Davidson€County.€€This€burden€does€notÐ 0"€  Ðseem€warranted,€considering€that€Davidson€Countyððs€only€link€to€the€litigation€is€Firestoneððs€allegedÐ #l! Ðconspiratorial€activity.€€By€contrast,€Mexico€is€linked€to€the€current€litigation€by€almost€every€criticalÐ $X" Ðevent€at€issue.€€As€such,€the€public€interest€factor€regarding€jury€duty€would€seem€to€favor€dismissal.Ð ô$D # ÐÌà  àFinally,€and€perhaps€most€telling,€the€trial€court€erred€when€it€failed€to€consider€theÐ Ì&"% Ðoverwhelming€interests€Mexico€has€in€adjudicating€these€cases.€€The€lower€courtððs€only€allusion€toÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€local€interest€factor€states€that€ð ðthere€stand€allegations€of€conspiratorial€activities€that€purportedlyÐ ¤(ô#' Ðoccurred€in€Davidson€County.€€This€factor€strongly€supports€trial€in€this€forum.ðð€€The€trial€courtÐ )à$( Ðâ âsimply€fails€to€balance€this€interest€against€the€interests€of€Mexico.Ð |*Ì%) Ðà  àIt€is€a€well€settled€principle€of€òòforum€non€conveniensóóthat€there€is€ð ða€local€interest€in€havingÐ ° Ðâ âlocalized€controversies€decided€at€home.ðð€€òòPiper€Aircraft€Co.€v.€Reynoóó,€454€U.S.€235,€260€(1981);Ð œì ÐòòGulf€Oil€Corp.€v.€Gilbertóó,€330€U.S.€501,€509€(1947);òò€Zurick€v.€Inmanóó,€426€S.W.2d€767,€772€(Tenn.Ð ˆØ Ð1968).€€In€the€present€matter,€all€the€deceased€were€from€Mexico;€all€the€plaintiffs€are€from€Mexico;Ð tÄ Ðthe€cars€and€tires€at€issue€were€purchased€in€Mexico;€the€cars€and€tires€at€issue€were€serviced€andÐ `° Ðmaintained€in€Mexico;€the€accidents€all€occurred€in€Mexico;€and€Mexican€law€will€govern€allÐ L œ Ðsubstantive€issues.€€In€short,€the€present€litigation€is€of€primary€local€interest€to€Mexico,€rather€thanÐ 8 ˆ ÐTennessee.€€The€plaintiffsðð€allegations€of€a€conspiracy€involving€Firestone€are€not€sufficient€toÐ $ t Ðcounterbalance€Mexicoððs€interest,€as€a€sovereign€nation,€in€deciding€controversies€that€involve€itsÐ  ` Ðcitizens€and€occur€within€its€borders.€Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àWe€note€that€the€lower€courtððs€analysis€of€the€various€òòZurickóófactors€seems€to€be€affected€byÐ Ô$  Ðits€view€that€the€remedies€and€procedures€afforded€by€Mexico€are€somehow€unfair€or€unsatisfactoryÐ À  Ðto€its€citizens.€€We€are€reminded€of€the€Fifth€Circuitððs€recent€admonition€regarding€such€a€view:Ð ¬ü  ÐÌÓ XÓÓ XÓ[I]n€making€this€policy€choice€[regarding€remedies€and€procedures],€the€MexicanÐ „Ô  Ðgovernment€has€resolved€a€trade„off€among€the€competing€objectives€and€costs€of€tortÐ pÀ Ðlaw,€involving€interests€of€victims,€of€consumers,€of€manufacturers,€and€of€variousÐ \¬ Ðother€economic€and€cultural€values€.€.€.€It€would€be€inappropriate„even€patronizing„Ð H˜ Ðfor€us€to€denounce€this€legitimate€policy€choice€by€holding€that€Mexico€provides€anÐ 4„ Ðinadequate€forum€for€Mexican€tort€victims€.€.€.€In€short,€we€see€no€warrant€for€us,€aÐ  p ÐUnited€States€court,€to€replace€the€policy€preference€of€the€Mexican€government€withÐ  \ Ðour€own€view€of€what€is€a€good€policy€for€the€citizens€of€Mexico.à  à€€€€€Ð øH ÐÓ XžwÓÓ XwÓÌòòGonzalez€v.€Chrysler€Corp.óó,€301€F.3d€377,€381„82€(5thòòóó€Cir.€2002).€€Mexico,€as€a€sovereign€nation,Ð Ð  Ðhas€an€interest€not€only€in€adjudicating€controversies€of€local€interest,€but€also€in€determining€theÐ ¼  Ðrights€and€remedies€that€will€necessarily€provide€a€framework€for€such€an€adjudication.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€sum,€we€find€that€the€lower€court€abused€its€discretion€by€improperly€considering€theÐ €Ð Ðadequacy€of€Mexico€as€an€alternative€forum€and€by€failing€to€properly€consider€and€balance€all€theÐ l¼ Ðrelevant€òòZurickóó€factors,€especially€those€dealing€with€public€interests.€€As€such,€we€reverse€the€rulingÐ X ¨ Ðof€the€lower€court.Ð D!” ÐÌà@  %ìàò òConclusionó óˆÐ #l! ÐÌà  àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€we€reverse€the€judgment€of€the€lower€court€and€dismiss€the€case.€Ð ô$D # ÐCosts€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€Appellees,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ð ¸'#& Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÔ#†X)XXX)D #ÔÔ#†¼JÕ»XX)ÿ #ÔòòóóÔ€X)X»¼JÕÔ