CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE MEDICINA DE GRUPO, dba Abramge,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STRYKER CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 17-1828
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:16-cv-01366—Robert J. Jonker, Chief District Judge.
Argued: January 25, 2018
Decided and Filed: May 31, 2018
Before: NORRIS, BATCHELDER, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. An association of Brazilian health insurance providers sued Stryker, a Michigan corporation that manufactures and distributes medical devices, alleging that Stryker’s fraudulent and improper payments to Brazilian doctors increased the cost of providing healthcare. The district court dismissed the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, essentially finding that the case should have been brought in Brazil instead of Michigan. Because Stryker did not carry its burden of proving that Brazil is an available and adequate alternative forum in which the case may be heard, we REVERSE and REMAND.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
CONNIE MCGIRR, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
THOMAS F. REHME; WAITE, SCHNEIDER, BAYLESS & CHESLEY CO., L.P.A.,
Defendants-Appellants.
   No. 17-3519
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 1:16-cv-00464—Robert H. Cleland, District Judge.
Argued: May 3, 2018
Decided and Filed: May 31, 2018
Before: SUHRHEINRICH, GIBBONS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. For years, plaintiffs’ attorney Stanley Chesley appears to have been orchestrating a high-stakes shell game in an effort to escape a long-overdue multi-million dollar judgment. In the process, he has defrauded hundreds of judgment creditors, many of whom are plaintiffs here.

Three-and-a-half years ago, a Kentucky state court issued a judgment in plaintiffs’ favor against Chesley for $42 million. Since then, the plaintiffs have been trying to collect on that judgment and Chesley has been successfully evading them with the help of his confidantes. In the process, five lawyers have been disbarred; two have been put in jail. Through it all, Chesley has managed to transfer most of his assets elsewhere, rendering himself judgment-proof and forcing the plaintiffs to file the fraudulent conveyance action underlying this appeal.

While that fraudulent conveyance action was pending, Chesley initiated an Ohio state probate court action. He claims the action was started for legitimate purposes—to pay off his law firm’s creditors in a judicially-supervised forum. The district court disagreed. Sensing Chesley was using the probate action to continue to conceal his assets, it issued a preliminary injunction freezing those assets. In the time since the injunction was entered (and this appeal was filed), that probate action was dismissed and declared fraudulent.

The preliminary injunction—which is worded broadly enough to remain effective despite the probate action’s dismissal—is the subject of our review in this interlocutory appeal. Because the injunction is still adequately supported by the record evidence and because it is still necessary, we affirm.