Maria Elena Martinez

Summary

The dissent argues that the trial court's forum non conveniens dismissal was contrary to settled Delaware law because the asserted hardship rested primarily on the identity of the proper defendant and the application of Argentine law. It contends that foreign-law issues, translation costs, and foreign experts do not establish overwhelming hardship and that the majority improperly changed precedent to protect Delaware's corporate franchise. The dissent would reject the majority's affirmance of the dismissal.