Fournier v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.
908 F. Supp. 2d 519
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Fournier, a New York–area professional, filed a diversity suit in New York against Starwood after an assault at Hotel Kamp in Helsinki in January 2011.
- Hotel Kamp is part of Starwood’s Luxury Collection but is not owned or operated by Starwood itself.
- Fournier alleges the assailant obtained a room key by falsely claiming to be her husband, leading to a room entry and sexual assault.
- Fournier seeks damages for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress under an agency liability theory, arguing Hotel Kamp was an apparent agent of Starwood.
- Starwood moves to dismiss under forum non conveniens, arguing the case should be heard in Finland.
- The court assesses deference to the plaintiff’s forum choice, the adequacy of a Finnish forum, and private/public interest factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fournier’s forum choice merits deference | Fournier’s New York forum deserves strong deference as her chosen forum. | Deference should be reduced given foreign aspects and alleged forum-shopping concerns. | Fournier’s forum choice is entitled to deference. |
| Whether Finland provides an adequate alternative forum | Finland would permit litigation of the dispute if foreign, including agency liability. | Finland is the proper alternative for resolving the claims. | Finland’s adequacy is not dispositive; private/public factors still favor retention. |
| Whether private interests favor retaining the NY forum | Evidence and witnesses are concentrated in the U.S.; access to proof is easier in NY. | Private interests favor Finland due to local convenience and law. | Private factors weigh heavily in Fournier’s favor for retention. |
| Whether public interests favor retaining the NY forum | U.S. courts have greater interest in adjudicating vicarious liability questions involving a U.S. company and brand. | Finnish forum would avoid U.S. public-law complexities. | Public factors favor retention in the New York forum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 416 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2005) (three-step forum non conveniens framework; deference, adequacy, balance)
- Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 562 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2009) (three-step test for forum non conveniens; deference and factors)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (presumption against disturbing plaintiff’s forum choice; deference framework)
- Iragorri v. United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65 (2d Cir. 2001) (flexible sliding scale for deference to forum choice; forum-shopping considerations)
- Forest Park Pictures v. Universal Television Network, Inc., 683 F.3d 424 (2d Cir. 2012) (choice-of-law and public-interest considerations in forum non conveniens)
- Dargahi v. Honda Lease Trust, 370 Fed.Appx. 172 (2d Cir. 2010) (loss-allocating and choice-of-law considerations in vicarious liability)
- GlobalNet Financial Corp. v. Frank Crystal & Co., Inc., 449 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2006) (loss-allocating rules and applicable choice-of-law framework)