As a rule, a federal court must hear a case if it has jurisdiction. But it can dismiss a case when there are compelling reasons why the case should have been brought somewhere else. Motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens require the movant to show that there’s an adequate alternative forum. Proving that the federal court is inconvenient isn’t enough—as the Tenth Circuit has put it, “[s]ometimes an inconvenient forum is the only available forum.” The Sixth Circuit recently issued an opinion that nicely shows what a party must prove to get a case dismissed based on forum non conveniens.

Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Grupot, a Brazilian nonprofit association of private health insurance providers, sued Stryker Corporation, a Michigan company that makes medical products. The nonprofit alleged that Stryker had masterminded an illegal scheme of bribes and kickbacks to encourage Brazilian doctors to use Stryker’s products. The Western District of Michigan dismissed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The nonprofit appealed, and the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that the trial court had abused its discretion.

The Sixth Circuit noted that a party can usually show that another court would have jurisdiction by using expert testimony. But Stryker didn’t even cite Brazilian law. Instead, Stryker argued that because it would consent to a Brazilian court’s jurisdiction, “Brazil is an available forum.”

The Sixth Circuit noted that the only support for this argument was a single-line statement in Stryker’s motion to dismiss. Not only is “an attorney’s statement in a brief . . . not evidence,” “Stryker has provided no evidence its consent to jurisdiction in Brazil would be legally meaningful . . . .” The Sixth Circuit analogized Stryker’s consent to jurisdiction to a “a party’s consent to a federal court’s jurisdiction over her state-law claim worth $50,000”—consent that “would not be legally meaningful; regardless of her consent, the federal court would be unable to hear the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.”

Because Stryker had the burden to prove no adequate alternative forum was available, the motion should not have been granted. The Sixth Circuit reversed, with permission for Stryker to refile its motion with supporting documents on remand.

Read the Sixth Circuit’s opinion here.