631 F. App'x 69
2d Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs are Dr. Ahmed Bahgat, his three children, and family holding company Global One Ltd.; defendants are the Arab Republic of Egypt and the National Bank of Egypt.
- Plaintiffs sued in the SDNY; district court dismissed on grounds of foreign sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and, alternatively, on forum non conveniens grounds.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that FSIA exceptions applied and that dismissal on forum non conveniens was improper.
- The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, relying on the district court’s alternative forum non conveniens holding.
- The court applied the three-step forum non conveniens test: deference to plaintiff’s forum choice, adequacy of the alternative forum, and balancing private/public interest factors.
- The court found diminished deference to the plaintiffs’ U.S. forum choice, Egypt to be an adequate forum despite political unrest, and that most parties, evidence, and operative events are in Egypt.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FSIA exceptions apply to defeat sovereign immunity | FSIA exceptions apply and permit suit in U.S. courts | Sovereigns are immune under FSIA; no exception applies | Court did not reach FSIA merits; affirmed dismissal on forum non conveniens alternative |
| Whether district court correctly applied forum non conveniens (degree of deference to plaintiff’s forum choice) | Plaintiffs entitled to strong deference for choosing U.S. forum | Deference should be diminished because plaintiffs reside in Egypt and engaged in forum shopping | Deference was properly diminished given Egyptian residence and indicia of forum shopping |
| Whether Egypt is an adequate alternative forum | Egypt may be inadequate due to political unrest and concerns about judiciary | Egypt is adequate; defendants showed courts still adjudicate commercial disputes | Egypt is an adequate alternative forum despite unrest evidence presented by defendants |
| Whether private and public interest factors favor U.S. or Egyptian forum | Plaintiffs argued U.S. forum appropriate for fairness and remedy | Defendants argued most witnesses, evidence, and events are in Egypt; Egyptian law implicated | Court found balance favored Egypt: key events, parties, witnesses, and documents located in Egypt; Egyptian law relevant |
Key Cases Cited
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malay. Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (court may dismiss on forum non conveniens before resolving jurisdictional issues)
- Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 416 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2005) (three-step forum non conveniens framework)
- Pollux Holding Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 329 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2003) (standard of review and abuse-of-discretion for forum non conveniens)
- Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (diminished deference when plaintiffs reside in alternative forum or engage in forum shopping)
- TransUnion Corp. v. PepsiCo, Inc., 811 F.2d 127 (2d Cir. 1987) (consideration of foreign political instability in adequacy analysis)