Mary DiFederico v. Marriott International, Incorporated
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8891
4th Cir.2013Background
- Widow Mary DiFederico and three sons sue Marriott International for wrongful death and survivorship, alleging Marriott failed to secure its Islamabad franchise hotel.
- Hotel franchise Hashwani Hotels Limited operated Marriott Islamabad; Marriott purportedly controlled security standards though Hashwani contracted security separately.
- Attack on September 20, 2008 at Marriott Islamabad caused 56 deaths, including Albert DiFederico, and injuries to hundreds.
- District of Maryland dismissed under forum non conveniens, finding Pakistan an adequate, available, and more convenient forum.
- Fourth Circuit holds district court abused discretion, reversing and remanding for further proceedings.
- Issues center on availability/adequacy of Pakistan forum, statute-of-limitations impact, and proper balancing of public/private factors with heightened deference to the home-forum plaintiff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of Pakistan forum | DiFedericos argue Pakistan not available due to limitations. | Marriott contends Pakistan is available and adequate. | Pakistan is not demonstrably available; district court abused discretion. |
| Effect of statute of limitations in Pakistan | Expired Pakistan statute makes Pakistan unavailable under Compania Naviera exception absence of deliberate choice. | Pakistan limitations can be waived or tolled by Marriott’s stance; exception may apply. | District court erred in applying Compania Naviera; cannot establish availability. |
| Deference to plaintiff’s home forum choice | Citizen-plaintiff choice in home forum deserves heightened deference. | Marriott rebutts with forum factors favoring Pakistan. | DiFedericos receive heightened deference; district court failed to apply. |
| Balance of private/public factors | Center of gravity in US; witnesses, evidence, and damages largely US-based. | Proof located in Pakistan; local interest favors Pakistan. | District court erred in weighting sources of proof, witness availability, and local interests. |
| Application of foreign-law burden/choice | Foreign-law difficulty not enough to justify dismissal. | Applying Pakistani law increases burdens and risks. | Foreign-law burden not dispositive; court must weigh overall balance; error in dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (forum non conveniens requires available, adequate forum and overall convenience balance)
- Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724 (4th Cir. 2010) (abuse of discretion if material factors ignored or misapplied)
- Jiali Tang v. Synutra Int’l, Inc., 656 F.3d 242 (4th Cir. 2011) (heavy burden on defendant to show available/adequate forum)
- Compania Naviera Joana S.A. v. Koninklijke Boskalis Westminster N.V., 569 F.3d 189 (4th Cir. 2009) (exception to forum non conveniens when plaintiff deliberately runs statute elsewhere)
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (avoid unnecessary burden on defendant; focus on convenience and access to witnesses)
- Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (1947) (presumption in favor of plaintiff’s home-forum choice; overcome only by strong showing)
- Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., 224 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2000) (emotional burden and danger of travel weighed as convenience factor)
- SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097 (11th Cir. 2004) (strong presumption in favor of plaintiff’s forum choice when citizen)
- Reid-Walen v. Hansen, 933 F.2d 1390 (8th Cir. 1991) (citizens should rarely be denied access to U.S. courts)
- Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D.C. v. Verlag, 536 F.2d 429 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (strongly disfavors forum non conveniens in citizen-access context)