The Evolution And Revelation Of US Federal Rules In Response To "Forum Shopping"

Last July, a Asiana Airlines Boeing777passenger plane suffered an emergentaccident,veered off the runway and burst into flames when it should have soon belanding at San Francisco Airport. This incident killed three Chinese students,drawingwidespread attention in China.In March this year, a Malaysia Airlines plane of the same model disappeared suddenly,and was confirmed a crash after stressful search for tens of days, which killed all the239people on the plane including154Chinese. This incident saddened China deeply.More than grief, the victims’ families’ choice of the damage suit jurisdictions drewwide attention as well.Even those media not specializing in legal field began todiscuss the cause and operablity of their choice.Because they all sued the airlines andthe aircraft manufacturer in US, although the process and nature of these two casesare obviously different.The plaintiffs chose US as the jurisdiction because of not only those case detailsconnected with US, but also the great advantage of American litigation andcompensation system, enormous awards, high litigation fees and both convenient andfamiliar court trial procedure are highly interesting for parties and lawyers.But it’s a premise to know how the American judges confirm that they have jurisdiction in acase.This is a theoretical problem that never be well expatiated by the law.This article just focus on the nature of "forum shopping" from the beginning.The firstchapter try to clarify the relationship of "forum shopping" and some similar concepts.On this basis, we can get the preliminary conclusions of differences among "forumselection","forum shopping","forum non conveniens" and "impropervenue",understand that "forum shopping" is a premise to dismiss an action based onthe pricinpal of "forum non conveniens" on one hand,and explore the methods to dealwith the different concepts on the other hand.The second chapter focuses on the train of thought and judge-made rules whiledetermining the nature and processing the issues.This chapter discovers that it makesdifference when "forum shopping" exists in a conflict of jurisdictions between federalcourts, a federal court and a state court, or a federal court and a state court. Thediscuss puts forward a feature hidden below the difference in this chapter.The third chapter launches our discuss even further,emphasizes the driver behind therules and the feature.The nature of this driver is the conflict among values, and rooteddeeply in the historical background of economy, politic and law.The fourth chapter shifts focus to China,and seeks where it can draw lessons to ourcountry from the research object in levels both of the nation and individuals. We can’tavoid the fact that China is also a multi-jurisdiction country when seeking the value toit, therefore the elaboration covers both interregional and international conflict.Thesection of the value to Chinese citizens is about how to take measures so that the UScourt could accept a case.It makes sense to understand American experience ofjurisdiction conflict for both Chinese judicial system and citizens.The conclusion reiterates the view that "forum shopping" is just like a double-edged sword. Although it leads to a competition between jurisdictions which may threatenthe justice and stability of national legal system, it is related to both justice relativismand a spirit of liberalism. In any case, we should deal with this puzzle by thinking allthrough, adapting to the evolution, and regarding the unification of substantive law asthe ultimate goal, so that solving problems at their source.