Eastman Kodak Co. v. Kavlin - 978 F. Supp. 1078 (S.D. Fla. 1997)

Rule:

A motion to dismiss should not be granted unless the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of its claim entitling it to relief. When considering a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all the plaintiff's allegations as true.

Facts:

Defendant Casa Kavlin, a Bolivian company, served as the exclusive Bolivian distributor for plaintiff Kodak. In 1995, Kodak was becoming dissatisfied with Casa Kavlin’s distribution services and sent plaintiff Juan Carballo, a citizen of Uruguay, to Bolivia to survey the market for Kodak products. Two months after Carballo arrived in Bolivia, Koak informed Casa Kavlin that it would no longer serve as the exclusive distributor of Kodak products in Bolivia, and instead, Carballo would be responsible for Kodak sales, supplies distribution, and representation in Bolivia. Casa Kavlin filed a criminal complaint against Carballo, alleging various crimes under Bolivian Law. Plaintiffs alleged that Casa Kavlin used its connections in order to have the case tried by an impartial judge, who, eventually ordered Carballo detained at what was alleged to be a rat-infested prison. Carballo was released from detention. Subsequently, Kodak sued Casa Kavlin and Susana Kavlin before the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging various theories arising under Bolivian law, including extortion, false accusation and denunciation, exercise of monopoly of work, and a declaratory judgment that Casa Kavlin was not entitled to the reliefs it sought in its Bolivian complaint. Carballo sued the same defendants, alleging that their misconduct in having him imprisoned as part of a scheme of extortion violated the law of nations. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, alleging ant of personal jurisdiction over the corporation, forum non conveniens as to all claims, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to the claims against Casa Kavlin arising under Bolivian law, and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to plaintiff.

Issue:

Should the court grant defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint?

Answer:

Yes, insofar as the false accusation and denunciation, exercise of monopoly of work, and a declaratory judgment that Casa Kavlin was not entitled to the reliefs it sought in its Bolivian complaint, is concerned. No, with respect to plaintiffs’ other claims

Conclusion:

The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints in part, denied in part and deferred in part. Specifically, the court ruled that defendants had not met their burden of proving the existence of an adequate alternative forum to hear plaintiffs' claims and therefore denied defendants' motions on the basis of forum non-conveniens arguments. The court granted defendants' motions insofar as Counts II, III, and IV of plaintiff U.S. corporation's complaint were dismissed. The court determined that Count II, alleging false accusation and denunciation, and Count III, alleging exercise of monopoly of work, arose under Bolivian criminal law and as such the court did not have jurisdiction to enforce them. The court determined that in Count IV, plaintiffs' sought declaratory relief in effect in order to preempt the effect of a possible adverse judgment in Bolivia. Accordingly, the court granted defendants' motions to dismiss as to all three counts. The court further found that plaintiff agent stated a claim under the Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.S § 1350, and the court had a duty to exercise the jurisdiction that Congress had conferred on it to hear the issue.