Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA — A federal judge in California has ruled that the High Court of American Samoa has jurisdiction to hear a wrongful death lawsuit brought by surviving members of a fisherman who died when he fell overboard a US fishing vessel docked in Pago Pago and drowned.

With that conclusion, US District Court, Philip S. Gutierrez of the federal court in Santa Ana, California “dismissed the case without prejudice for ‘forum non conveniens’,” at the federal court, “conditioned upon Defendants’ compliance with their representations that they will submit to jurisdiction in the High Court of American Samoa.”

The dismissal order was issued Jan. 22nd based on a motion filed by Tri Marine Fish Company LLC (TMFC) — one of the defendants in both the federal court and High Court.

TMFC sought to dismiss the federal case for forum non conveniens, which argues that the proper venue for this case is American Samoa, where the incident occurred and where all witnesses are located.

Plaintiffs — Maren Miller, the personal representative of the estate of Michael Castaneda (deceased), and Tracey Castaneda, the deceased’s wife — had opposed, arguing among other things that “American Samoa would be an inadequate forum” to hear claims under the federal Jones Act because the “High Court of American Samoa does not conduct jury trials in civil actions.”

In its latest response filed last week, TMFC argued that plaintiffs “have voluntarily chosen to file a parallel action in American Samoa — arising out of the same facts and controversies as this [federal] case — and they cannot therefore genuinely claim that American Samoa is an inconvenient forum or that they lack the financial means to pursue a case there.”

“Lack of jury trials [for civil cases] however, does not render a foreign forum inadequate,” TMFC further argued.

According to Gutierrez’s 13-page decision, issued after reviewing all submitted documents, and without the need of hearing oral arguments, “as American Samoa is a U.S. territory, its courts apply U.S. law when appropriate.”

“And as two of Plaintiffs’ causes of action are brought under American Samoa law, there can be no question that a court in American Samoa can capably adjudicate these claims,” the judge wrote,

And by filing claims against defendants Samoa Tuna Processors and Samoa Tuna Fishing Management Inc. in the High Court of American Samoa that “mirror claims in this case, plaintiffs implicitly concede that they believe, that court is capable of adjudicating at least some of their claims,” the judge pointed out.

Gutierrez noted that, “plaintiffs argue only that the High Court of American Samoa is not an adequate forum for their Jones Act claims because it does not allow for jury trials in civil cases.”

“While it is true that the Jones Act grants the right to trial by jury” under federal law, “the mere fact that Plaintiffs' claim may not be adjudicated in American Samoa, the same manner as it would be in this Court, is not enough to render the High Court of American Samoa an inadequate forum.” the judge said, adding that the relevant question is whether the High Court of American Samoa will offer plaintiffs ‘no practical remedy’.”

“Denial of a jury trial clearly falls short of that standard,” he said and explained that as other federal courts “have noted, if a lack of a jury trial alone was enough to render a foreign forum inadequate, almost all foreign forums would be inadequate as the United States is one of the few countries in the world that provide for civil juries.”

“Plaintiffs have asserted no other basis for finding the High Court of American Samoa an inadequate forum. Accordingly, [this] Court concludes that it is adequate,” he continued.

He pointed out that “that this Court lacks subpoena power over several witnesses and documents located in American Samoa," and these include eyewitnesses to the accident, the doctors who treated and performed the autopsy on Michael Castaneda, the autopsy records, the police officers who investigated the incident, and the investigative records.

“As these appear to be key pieces of evidence, this factor weighs strongly in favor of trying the case in American Samoa,” wrote the judge.

Among other issues addressed by Gutierrez are travel difficulties to American Samoa from the US, that was raised by the plaintiffs, because “flights are limited and expensive”, which he says “cut both ways”; and “public factors interests” in this case, where the defendants’ attorneys argued there is major American Samoa interest in the case as well as its outcome.

Defendants had submitted as part of its evidence, stories published by Samoa News going back to November 2017, a few days after the incident at the STP wharf, followed by the local police investigation. This is to show, according to the defense, there is local interest.

“American Samoa undoubtedly has a strong interest in this case given that it involves an accident and allegedly botched rescue that took place on its soil,” Gutierrez pointed out and ruled that litigating the case in American Samoa outweighs the interest of the United States and plaintiffs.