Wilmot v. Marriott Hurghada Management, Inc.
712 F. App'x 200
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Guy Wilmot, a U.K. citizen, alleged a poolside injury at the Marriott Resort in Hurghada, Egypt; treatment occurred in Egypt and the U.K., and witnesses and medical records are in those countries.
- Wilmot sued Marriott Hurghada Management, Inc. and Marriott International, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware; Marriott is a Delaware corporation.
- Marriott moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens, offering to accept service and jurisdiction in Egypt and the United Kingdom and to waive jurisdictional and statute-of-limitations defenses there.
- The District Court afforded Wilmot’s forum choice reduced deference (he is a foreign plaintiff), found both Egypt and the U.K. adequate alternative fora, and concluded private and public interest factors favored dismissal.
- Wilmot appealed, arguing the district court erred in deference to his forum choice, in finding alternative fora adequate, and in balancing private and public interest factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Level of deference to foreign plaintiff's U.S. forum choice | Wilmot: district court gave no deference and used wrong standard | Marriott: foreign plaintiff’s choice merits less deference absent convenience ties | Court: no abuse; reduced deference appropriate because forum lacked convenience ties |
| Availability of alternative fora | Wilmot: Egypt (and U.K.) inadequate; Egyptian courts unsafe/corrupt | Marriott: consents to jurisdiction/service and waives defenses; both fora can hear the claim | Court: U.K. and Egypt are available and adequate; plaintiff failed to rebut adequacy evidence |
| Weight of private interest factors (witnesses, proof, view premises) | Wilmot: can litigate in Delaware despite foreign evidence | Marriott: evidence and witnesses mainly in Egypt/U.K., making Delaware inconvenient | Court: private factors favor dismissal — most proof and witnesses abroad |
| Weight of public interest factors (local interest, governing law, court burden) | Wilmot: Delaware has interest because defendants incorporated there | Marriott: local interest lies with Egypt/U.K.; Delaware has minimal connection | Court: public factors favor dismissal — Delaware’s interest is limited to corporate domicile |
Key Cases Cited
- Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947) (formulated forum non conveniens doctrine and public/private interest balancing)
- Koster v. (Am.) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (1947) (forum non conveniens protects defendants from oppressive litigation burdens)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (availability and adequacy of alternative forum and deference to district court discretionary balancing)
- Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 886 F.2d 628 (3d Cir. 1989) (review scope and reduced deference for foreign plaintiffs)
- Kisano Trade & Invest Ltd. v. Lemster, 737 F.3d 869 (3d Cir. 2013) (four-factor framework for forum non conveniens analysis)
- Windt v. Qwest Commc’ns Int’l, Inc., 529 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2008) (presumption of convenience for domestic plaintiffs)
- Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517 (1988) (cases turn on facts; district court flexibility)
- Williams v. Green Bay & W. R.R. Co., 326 U.S. 549 (1946) (forum non conveniens principles and factual emphasis)
- Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Chimet, S.p.A., 619 F.3d 288 (3d Cir. 2010) (private interest factors enumerated)
- Iragorri v. Int’l Elevator, Inc., 203 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2000) (State Department warnings insufficient without particularized danger to plaintiff)
- Stroitelstvo Bulgaria Ltd. v. Bulgarian-Am. Enter. Fund, 589 F.3d 417 (7th Cir. 2009) (allegations of corruption must show systemic inability to provide justice)
- Dahl v. United Techs. Corp., 632 F.2d 1027 (3d Cir. 1980) (conditional dismissal on alternative forum is common practice)