Amur Sp. z.o.o., et al v. FedEx Corporation
OPINION filed: Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the district court s opinion, we AFFIRM. Decision not for publication. Eugene E. Siler , Jr., Alice M. Batchelder (authoring), and Richard Allen Griffin, Circuit Judges.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 17a0199n.06
Apr 04, 2017
DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
AMUR SP. Z.O.O.; KRZYSTOF KĘDZIERSKI,
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
SILER, BATCHELDER, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge.
Amur Sp. Z.O.O. (Amur), a Polish
corporation, and Krzystof Kędzierski, a resident of Poland, brought this action against FedEx
Corporation, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Memphis, Tennessee.
In 1999, Kędzierski designed computer software for another Polish corporation, Opek Sp. Z.O.O.
(Opek), and he provided ongoing IT services to Opek through Amur. A 2010 license agreement
for a subsequent version of the software provided, among other things, that Amur held the
copyright to the software and that Opek could not license or sublicense it without Amur’s
consent. In 2011, FedEx sought to expand its courier business to Poland and expressed interest
in acquiring Opek. Although the initial negotiations over the acquisition included Opek’s owner
and Kędzierski, Amur and Kędzierski allege that they were not part of the final negotiations
leading to the eventual acquisition.
FedEx purchased Opek, but did not make a separate
No. 16-5365, Amur Sp. Z.O.O. v. FedEx Corp.
agreement with Amur or purchase Amur’s software.
After the acquisition, FedEx told
Kędzierski that it would not pay Amur to license the software. Amur and Opek have settled their
disputes arising from this acquisition.
Amur and Kędzierski now sue FedEx for tortious
interference with contract, tortious interference with a business relationship, unjust enrichment,
aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and civil conspiracy, all under Tennessee law.
FedEx filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) on March 6, 2015, a motion to stay discovery on April 6, 2015, a motion to
dismiss for forum non conveniens on September 4, 2015, and a second motion to stay discovery
on September 10, 2015. The district court denied the first motion to stay discovery on April 7,
2015. On March 7, 2016, the district court granted the forum non conveniens motion, and denied
the Rule 12(b)(6) motion and the second motion to stay discovery as moot. The district court
concluded that the forum non conveniens motion was timely, that Poland was an adequate
alternative forum, and, upon its weighing the various public and private factors that the Supreme
Court has laid out in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947), that the case should be
dismissed. Reasons supporting dismissal included the difficulty of compelling witnesses from
Poland to testify in the Western District of Tennessee, the fact that much of the evidence is
located in Europe and Poland, the applicability of Polish law, and an insufficient local interest in
the case in the Western District of Tennessee.
Amur and Kędzierski have appealed, arguing that the district court abused its discretion
in granting the motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. In particular, they claim that
discovery in this matter had proceeded so far as to render FedEx’s forum non conveniens claim
untimely. We disagree. After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’
briefs, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint.
No. 16-5365, Amur Sp. Z.O.O. v. FedEx Corp.
The district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the law governing the issues raised
and clearly articulates the reasons underlying its decision. Thus, the issuance of a full written
opinion by this court would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the
district court’s opinion, we AFFIRM.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?