*1 Before F LAUM M ANION , R OVNER , Circuit Judges . R OVNER Circuit Judge . Ashoke contracted dian moving company, Allied Lemuir, move his belong ings Calcutta, St. John’s, Canada, his belong ings never left He now seeks hold defendants, two United States companies, SIRVA, Inc. Van Lines, Inc., responsible improper disposal loss personal property connection his move. moved complaint, arguing *2 had failed to state claim for which court could grant re lief, he had failed to join necessary party, and United States federal proper venue for his claim. district agreed with latter argument and dismissed grounds conveniens. Deb ap peals. Because we have determined did hold to demonstrating India was an available and adequate litigation, we vacate and remand to do so.

I. Because defendants, SIRVA and Allied Van Lines, moved dismiss, will construe facts plaintiff’s favor now, will discuss nuances our assump tions below. Jackson Payday Fin. LLC, 765, 773, n.19 (7th 2014), cert. denied, S. Ct. (2015). August, preparation his move from Cal

cutta, his current home St. John’s Province Newfoundland Labradour, Canada, Deb, citizen and resident Canada, contracted an company, Al lied Lemuir, move his personal belongings from Calcutta St. John’s. Deb’s belongings, however, never left On September Allied Lemuir e mailed Deb informed him sea freight charges risen substantially, sequently, Deb need pay additional amount money items shipped. refused pay ad ditional amount demanded Allied Lemuir fulfill its obligations under contract written. At same time attempting settle matters Lemuir India, he also contacted defendants, United States companies Van Lines, effort ob tain personal goods. Furthermore, December *3 until May 2011, Deb’s Canadian counsel attempted resolve issue with attorney Allied Van Lines Canada (“Al lied Canada”).

Allied Lemuir sent Deb letter dated January 30, 2010, de manding additional charges had accrued demurrage, fumigation, renewal customs clearance, sea freight. letter stated if Deb failed remit payment within seven days, it would assume he was no longer interested in shipment. Deb did respond letter directly, but rather relied on his Canadian lawyer pursue resolution by means, including by contacting this case corresponding them over course sev eral months. On August 11, 2010, SIRVA’s claim services partment responded Deb’s inquiries, stating unable identify record Deb’s shipment SIRVA’s system, stated if move was through Allied North American, claims service representative ward message proper party Deb provided reg istration number. According letter dated August 26, 2010, which says he did receive until it was sent his coun sel on April 12, 2013, Allied Lemuir eventually sold Deb’s property pay additional amounts demanded Deb. filed legal action against Canada Su preme Court Newfoundland Labrador, Canada, Trial Division November And, few years later, July while Canadian case still pending, he filed complaint Indiana State Superior Court against Van Lines, both which Delaware corporations principal place business *4 No. 14 ‐ 2484 Illinois and corporate offices Indiana. On August 5, 2013, jointly filed successful notice of re moval district court southern district of Indiana. Deb seeks hold SIRVA and Van Lines responsible damages improper disposal ultimate loss of his personal property, which he alleges include original works of intellectual property that, together personal belongings, exceed value of $75,000. His amended complaint alleges SIRVA Van Lines liable Deb “joint venturers.” (R. 27, pp. ‐ 4, Page ID ‐ 287) (Plaintiff’s Supp. App. B003 ‐ B004).

The district granted defendants’ motion dis miss June 6, 2014, based on ground non veniens, noting both Canada offered appropri ate alternative forums action. appeals.

II.

A. The filed motion pursuant Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (failure state claim upon which relief can granted), 12(b)(7) (failure join party), 12(b)(3) (improper venue). Subsumed within this last category common law principles non conveniens abstention. dis missed ground conveniens. stated SIRVA its principal place business Indiana. Inc. 1:13 CV ‐ TWP, WL *1 (S.D. Ind. June 2014) (R. p.2, Page ID 740), appears incorrect. See Declaration Abigail M. Jones, Memorandum Support Defendant’s Motion Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, Exhibit ¶ *5 5 14 2484

As Latin name suggests, the doctrine of forum non conveniens addresses matter of convenience parties. As Supreme Court explained,

A federal court has discretion dismiss a case ground of forum non conveniens when alternative forum has jurisdiction hear case, trial chosen forum estab lish oppressiveness vexation a defendant out of all proportion plaintiff’s convenience, chosen forum [is] inappropriate because considerations affecting court’s own ad ministrative legal problems.

Sinochem Int ʹ l Co. v. Malaysia Int ʹ l Shipping Corp. , 549 U.S. 422, 429 (2007) (citing a long line Supreme Court precedent) (in ternal citations omitted). Today, doctrine applies federal courts only when is foreign one. ^[2] Stated more simply, may forum non conveniens grounds when it determines there “strong reasons believing should litigated courts another, normally foreign, jurisdiction.” Fischer Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt. , cert. nied S. Ct. (2015) ( citing Sinochem , U.S. A dismissal non conveniens “committed sound discretion trial court” “may reversed only common law doctrine conveniens continuing ap plication federal cases where alternative foreign one. Otherwise, issue convenience within United States federal system, Federal Rules Civil Procedure allow transfer, rather than dismissal, when sister federal more convenient See U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 1406(a); Sinochem U.S. *6 6 14 2484 when there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno , 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981); Abad v. Bayer Corp. , 563 F.3d 663, 665 (7th Cir. 2009). doctrine forum non conveniens, however, is ex ‐

ceptional a must use sparingly. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert , 330 U.S. 501, 504, 509 (the doctrine should be applied “exceptional circumstances,” “rather rare cases.”) See also Carijano v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. , 643 F.3d 1216, 1224 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The doctrine forum non conveniens is a drastic exercise court’s inherent power … . There fore, we treated non conveniens exceptional tool be employed sparingly.”) “[U]nless balance is strongly favor defendant, plaintiff’s choice fo rum should rarely disturbed. Gulf Oil , 330 U.S. at 504. exceptional nature dismissal veniens means defendant invoking ordinarily bears heavy burden opposing plaintiff’s chosen Sino chem , 549 U.S. at 430; Gulf Oil , 330 U.S. at 508; In re Hudson , 710 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2013); In re Factor VIII IX Concen trate Blood Products Litigation , F.3d (7th Cir. A heavy is appropriate, because if doctrine is suc cessfully invoked, result not transfer another dismissal, plaintiff will able refile his statute limitations run. In re Hudson , F.3d at

When plaintiff’s choice home forum, however, presumption plaintiff’s favor “applies less force,” assumption chosen appropri ate such cases “less reasonable.” Sinochem , U.S. ( citing Piper Aircraft U.S. 255–56). U.S.O. Corp. Mi zuho Holding Co. (7th 2008), noted *7 that “[I]f the plaintiff is suing far from home, it is less reason able assume the forum is convenient one. … [and T]he risk chosen forum really has little connection litigation is greater.”) (citing In re Factor VIII or IX Concen trate Blood Products Litigation, F.3d 956.) It is true lives Newfoundland, Canada not United States, but although citizenship plaintiff defending against non conveniens claim is relevant issue convenience, is not dispositive issue. See, e.g., Scot tish Air Int ʹ l, Inc. British Caledonian Grp., PLC F.3d (2d As noted blood products litiga tion, issue so much about foreign citizenship plaintiff, rather what foreign nationality might dicate about convenience plaintiff. In re Factor VIII IX Concentrate Blood Products Litig. words, when plaintiff suing far home risk chosen really has little

connection litigation greater. We do understand as kind bias against eign plaintiffs. That inconsistent many treaties United States signed as well general principle our open all who seek legitimately use them. It instead practical observation about convenience. A citizen Texas who cided sue federal Alaska might face equally skeptical court, which might conclude convenience requires change venue under federal statutory counterpart conveniens. *8 ‐ 2484 Id. at 956. Nonetheless, it is undoubtedly true although is a citizen or resident of United States, litigation Indiana far more convenient a geographical perspective than And any case, even if we ap ‐ ply presumption favor of less force, it is still defendants’ burden oppose chosen

In short, we consider whether exerted permissible discretion on forum non con ‐ veniens grounds, consider whether it properly placed demonstrate finding fo ‐ rum non conveniens within realm appropriate con ‐ clusions.

To determine whether dismissal forum non conven iens is appropriate, first must determine if alterna tive adequate forum is available then go bal ance interests various participants. We start availability forum because, “[a[s practical matter, makes little sense broach subject forum non con veniens unless adequate alternative forum is available hear case. Therefore, first step veniens inquiry decide whether such place exists.” Kamel Hill Rom Co. , F.3d (7th 1997) (citing Piper Aircraft , U.S. at n.22). availability fo rum really two part inquiry involving availability ad equacy. re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Products Litig. F.3d “An alternative available all parties amenable process are within forum’s jurisdic tion. An alternative adequate when parties will deprived all remedies treated unfairly.” ( citing Kamel Adequacy comes into play *9 9 No. 14 ‐ 2484 extent remedy would so inadequate that all tents and purposes forum not available. Piper Aircraft , U.S. at 255, n.22. A forum inadequate merely cause law foreign jurisdiction less favorable party opposing dismissal. at 247, 250; Stroitelstvo Bulgaria Ltd. v. Bulgarian ‐ Am. Enter. Fund , F.3d 417, (7th 2009).

We begin, therefore, by looking defendants see if have met of establishing an alternative available and adequate. Fischer , at 867. After demonstrating India offered an adequate forum, we go balance interests by focusing on (1) relative ease access sources of proof; (2) availability of compulsory process costs attendance witnesses; (3) possibility viewing premises, appropriate; (4) practical issues, including ease enforcement ultimate judgment. See Gulf Oil , U.S. at As we will describe, however, we need go balance terests, because conclude failed show there was an available adequate available elsewhere.

B. concluded there “two possible forums satisfy requirement” an alternate available forum—Canada Inc. 1:13 CV TWP, WL *3 (S.D. Ind. June 2014) (R. Page ID We begin first analysis India alternate argued appropriate because could exer cise over Lemuir, “assuming, arguendo *10 that Deb’s joint venture theory correct, and SIRVA and [Al lied Van Lines] doing business in India Allied Lemuir, and, therefore, responsible for joint venture’s actions, Indian courts would be able to exercise jurisdiction over SIRVA and [Allied Van Lines].” Defendants’ brief

It worth stopping for moment unpack defend ants’ argument further. Recall that Deb contracted with Allied Lemuir move belongings. failed contract with Allied Lemuir. Deb never sued Allied Lemuir, instead sued two United States companies, defendants here, SIRVA Allied Van Lines. As we just explained, order non conven iens, defendants have demonstrating that alternate available—in words, could sue these defendants, SIRVA Allied Van Lines, And way can sue SIRVA Allied Van Lines something do with wrongdoing occurred India—either they broke contract sold goods (which know they did do) they some legally sufficient affiliation Lemuir would allow Indian courts ex ert jurisdiction over them.

Oddly, order support dismissal veniens then, end up trying thread small eyed needle by claiming, hand, could subject jurisdiction India, while simultaneously refusing acknowledge actual legal affiliation Lemuir. To do this, brief appeal dances around these issues by making naked assertions such as, “the District Court also properly found able exer cise over [Allied Van Lines], even *11 ‐ without consent,” by trying connect Allied Lemuir with without really connecting them:

Here, as District Court correctly found, Indian Courts may exercise over Al ‐ lied Lemuir as resident India ducted business Further, as District Court determined, assuming arguendo Deb’s joint venture theory is correct, and SIRVA and [Allied Van Lines] were doing busi ness India as Allied Lemuir, and, therefore, responsible joint venture’s actions, Indian would able exercise jurisdic tion over SIRVA and [Allied Van Lines] cause: (1) Allied Lemuir is corpora tion and resident; and (2) SIRVA and [Allied Van Lines] been doing business India and responsible joint venture’s ac tions.

Defendants’ brief All these assertions depend notion SIRVA Allied Van Lines were somehow connected with Allied Lemuir. But is defendant’s bur den demonstrate conveniens appropriate, evidence support contention comes bald assertions plaintiff’s compliant SIRVA Allied Van Lines doing business joint ven ture Allied Lemuir. plaintiff’s assertion, which defendants’ point

support dismissal, Lemuir member Group part joint venture SIRVA Van Lines. (R. pp. Page ID 286) (Plaintiff’s *12 ‐ Supp. App. B002 B003). To support assertion, at tached complaint some marketing materials Allied Lemuir posted internet boasting of its affiliation with SIRVA Allied Van Lines. Ex. C. Of course, this point, in current posture a motion dismiss, fendants’ affiliation with Allied Van Lines has never been questioned, tested or explored. All have is some pages printed out internet in which a foreign company word “Allied” in its name is asserting in marketing material reliable because it is affiliated two international companies, which also has name “Allied” its name. material has been authen ticated verified, no court ever made a determination about any connection between Lemuir defend ants this case, never admitted connection Lemuir. This so because this comes before us motion dismiss which a court can determine truth factual assertions. When consider ing motion dismiss, ordinarily assumes truth all well pleaded allegations plaintiff’s com plaint. Firestone Fin. Corp. Meyer (7th But rule less absolute when considering motion under Federal Rule 12(b)(3) than under Rule 12(b)(6). Under Rule 12(b)(3), which allows dismissal improper venue, assumes truth al legations plaintiff’s complaint, unless contradicted by defendant’s affidavits. 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice Procedure § (2004). Rule 12(b)(3) somewhat unique context dismissal may look beyond mere allegations complaint, *13 13 2484 need view allegations the complaint the ex ‐ clusive basis for its decision. Estate Myhra v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. , F.3d (11th Cir. 2012).

This Circuit has opportunity discuss ‐ tricacies assumptions a court should make when a ‐ fendant contradicts plaintiff’s bald assertion venue a motion dismiss improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3), have before concluded that, when considering a mo ‐ tion dismiss general, a court may consider matters out ‐ side pleadings resolve factual questions pertaining jurisdiction, process, or indispensable parties. English v. Cowell , F.3d (7th Cir. 1993). Moreover, cir ‐ cuits have considered question agree it appropri ‐ ate district court look outside complaint, partic ularly defendant’s contradictory statements, when con sidering motion under Rule 12(b)(3). For exam ple, Second Circuit has noted:

If defendant presents evidence venue improper plaintiff responds trary evidence, “it may appropriate hold Rule 12(b)(3) motion abeyance until holds evi dentiary hearing disputed facts.” Mur phy F.3d … “Alternatively, dis trict may deny Rule 12(b)(3) motion while granting leave refile further devel opment record eliminates genuine factual issue.”

Hancock Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. (10th And Ninth Circuit noted when outcome 12(b)(3) motion might “dramatic effect *14 2484 plaintiff’s choice … no disputed fact should be re solved against party until an opportunity to heard.” Murphy v. Schneider Nat ʹ l, Inc. , F.3d (9th Cir. 2004); Pierce v. Shorty Small ʹ s of Branson Inc. F.3d (10th Cir. 1998) (“Plaintiff contends in responding to a motion dismiss improper venue, he entitled to rely upon the well pled facts of complaint. This is true, however, only the extent such facts are uncontroverted by defendant’s affidavit.”); Home Ins. Co. Thomas Indus., Inc. (11th 1990) (“When a complaint is dis missed basis of improper venue without evidentiary hearing, plaintiff must present a prima facie showing of venue. … Further, [t]he facts as alleged in complaint are taken as true extent uncontroverted by defend ants’ affidavits.”) (internal citations omitted).

Ordinarily these cases speak ability view evidence party moving dismiss (the defendant) order rebut allegations movant’s (the plaintiff’s) complaint asserting facts supporting its chosen venue. This case is unique that, unusual course events, cite plaintiff’s bare allegation joint venture complaint order support tention should dismissed under Rule 12(b)(3). But general premise same. Where party makes bald claim venue party contradicts it, dis trict may look beyond pleadings determine whether chosen venue appropriate.

It worth noting plaintiff’s defending motion low. Other than exceptions dis cussed, generally accepts plaintiff’s allegations *15 true purposes of the motion to dismiss, as long as the com ‐ plaint contains sufficient factual allegations to state claim relief that legally sound and plausible on its face. Ashcroft Iqbal U.S. (2009). defendants’ burden in al ‐ leging conveniens, however, heavy. Sinochem U.S. Defendants must submit evidence an ade quate and alternative Combining the principles discussed above—that the district court may look beyond the bare allegations complaint where the defendants dis pute facts related to venue, that defendants bear heavy burden showing an alternate forum—we look to see whether placed burden defend ants demonstrate that an alternate was available, whether defendants met burden. We conclude did not hold defendants bur den, nor did defendants meet it. To contrary, extent defendants offered any evidence argument all, evidence they would not, in fact, be subject ju risdiction in India.

Much language Defendants’ Memorandum Support its Motion Dismiss argues they had nothing do with Lemuir’s actions thus could not sociated Indian company. defendants do even offer evidence they doing business In dia. If, fact, nothing do Deb’s loss have no connection Lamuir, would no business asserting over them. short, rather than supporting their demonstrating there available alternative India, they instead offer allegations subject ju risdiction For example, briefing below motion dismiss, state following:

Deb’s assertion Defendants an agency, joint venture, or any other kind relationship among themselves, with Allied Lemuir, or any ‐ else could impute liability Defend ants breach contract or conversion equally unavailing. Deb has failed offer any evidence a joint venture or even alleged association two or more persons carry out a single business enterprise profit.

Memorandum Support Defendants’ Motion Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (R. p.10, Page ID memorandum replete with similar allegations which, true, seem lead conclusion could not assert over defend ants. For example, state: • “While Deb makes much ado about self serving, unau thenticated Allied Lemuir document (Amended Complaint Ex. C) purporting demonstrate Allied Lemuir cre ated as joint venture between Lemuir, [Allied Van Lines] several companies, merely calling relation ship ‘joint venture’ does mean joint venture ex ists.” Id. (internal citation omitted); • “Deb added allegations attempt bolster asser tion [Allied Van Lines] are liable acts Lemuir ‘joint venturers’ (which are not). (R. p.2, Page ID 406); • “Defendants Delaware Corporations are privity Deb, never conducted any business him. Further, failed establish ‘joint ven ture’ agency relationship between or among Defendants *17 Allied Lemuir (and particular, at time ship ment) or any reason to believe Deb transacted with anyone other than Allied Lemuir transport his belongings.” Id.;

• “Defendants have never conducted business or entered into any agreements with Deb … Instead Plaintiff’s dealings transporting his household belongings been exclu sively with Allied Lemuir, legally separate entity .” Id. at 3, (R. 30, p.3, Page ID 407) (emphasis ours); • “Defendants liable Deb under common agency principles when Defendants never agreed act as principal creating any sort agency relationship between Defendants Allied Lemuir this shipment.” Id. at 10, (R. 30, p.10, Page ID 414);

• “Defendants cannot be held liable Deb Allied Lemuir or anyone else’s actions under joint venture, agency, apparent authority, or theory, Deb’s Amended Complaint must dismissed failure state claim upon which relief can granted.” Id. (R. 30, p.12, Page ID 416)

• Lemuir, separate distinct company, party this lawsuit, arranged Deb transport Deb’s belongings Canada. (R. p.15, Page ID 419);

• “Even assuming veracity these facts (which De fendants dispute) failed assert cognizable viable claims. There no mistaking was dealing exclu sively Lemuir shipment. Not docu *18 ment memorializing transaction governing transpor tation Deb’s personal belongings mentions or AVL.” Id. at (R. 30, p.11, Page ID 415).

Having spent so much time asserting that they no re lationship Lemuir, it is no wonder that fendants left to make broad conclusory allegations about India as an available forum. In its memorandum in support motion to dismiss, under section labeled “India is an Available Forum” defendants correctly note that law requires that “all parties must subject jurisdic tion foreign amenable process.” Id. at (R. p.2, Page ID They then baldly assert that “India meet[s] requirements an adequate alternative forum.” at 20. That whole defendants’ claim India an available They do offer any evidence they subject jurisdiction in India, but rather simply conclude without reasoning, law, or concessions India an adequate alternative. cannot both ways. They cannot vehemently deny any connection underlying actions giving rise this litigation any connection Lemuir, simultaneously assert plaintiff could sue them court. If there brief before court, argue chal lenged adequacy availability. It was, however, defendants’ meet first instance. Sinochem U.S. at And event, explicitly argued below brief appeal “Defendants fail provide evidence subject India.” Plaintiff’s Brief Plaintiff’s Response Opposition Defendant’s Motion Dismiss (Plaintiff’s Supp. Appendix B060). *19 19

independent basis on which an Indian court might assert ju ‐ risdiction over the defendants, unconnected the facts this case, the defendants have not noted it.

Without evidence a concession the jurisdiction the Indian courts, whatever the defendants had show an adequate alternative forum India, there can be no doubt that defendants did not meet it. And their ap ‐ pellate brief no more illuminating. defendants’ argu ‐ ment on adequacy India forum this court simply “the District Court correctly determined that Can ‐ ada available alternative forums.” Defend ‐ ants’ brief And because no evi dence, rely upon case from Second Circuit proposition need “nothing more than belief” be able exercise jurisdiction. Defendants’ brief (citing Schertenlieb Traum (2d duce this principle from language Schertenlieb case which states “that should not unless it justifiably believes alternative forum will take jurisdic tion, if defendant consents.” Id . (emphasis ours). addi tion being almost year old case different cir cuit, Schertenlieb case does help defend ants, it undermines argument entirely. To begin, lan guage requires “justifiable belief”—presumably supported by evidence. We can assume so cause Schertenleib Second Circuit affirmed lower court’s dismissal conveniens grounds based three strong factors demonstrated alternate available: first, had expert testimony defendant could subject jurisdiction foreign defendant conceded there; second, *20 20 14 2484 the defendant’s actual concession to jurisdiction the foreign forum; third, the court also secured the defendant’s agreement waive statute limitations should the case need return district United States. at 1160, 1166. In case, on hand, defendants’ argument district “properly found would be able exercise jurisdiction over AVL, even without consent.” Defendants’ brief at do tell us why finding was proper, particularly when was based district court’s naked belief—without evidence, without expert testimony, without a concession jurisdiction. Nothing Schertenleib stands proposition a district court’s unsupported belief defendant be subject jurisdiction foreign court, without more, enough grant motion conveniens. In fact, cases clearly refute idea court’s mere lief enough instead place hands defendant (and generally heavy one) demonstrating availability adequacy foreign Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court W. Dist. Texas , 134 S. Ct. 568, 583 n.8 (2013); Sinochem , 549 U.S. at 430; Gulf Oil , 330 U.S. at 508; Fischer , 777 F.3d at 867; In re Hudson , 710 F.3d at 718; In re Factor VIII IX Concentrate Blood Products Litigation , 484 F.3d 956; U.S.O. Corp. v. Mizuho Holding Co. , F.3d 749– (7th Cir. 2008); re Ford Motor Co., Bridgestone/Firestone N. Am. Tire, LLC F.3d (7th Cir. also argue

required condition dismissal Deb’s complaint defendants’ concession Defendant’s brief (citing Leetsch Freedman (9th 2001)). This may so, concession merely *21 form of evidence a defendant can present to meet her bur ‐ den demonstrating foreign jurisdiction will be avail ‐ able and adequate. This precisely what Leetsch court ex ‐ plains: there no “inflexible test requiring conditional dis missal” but rather, “a court can required to impose conditions there justifiable reason to doubt party will cooperate with foreign forum.” Leetsch, F.3d at 1104. defendants’ many arguments disavowing con nection Lemuir and events giving rise this lit igation give this more than fair pause about whether they will cooperate forum. in case consented jurisdiction in and have offered one shred evidence would subject jurisdiction in

In contrast matter before us, cases in which party successfully moved conveniens, party presented evidence available adequate alternate or made concession it accept service there order guarantee availability alternate For example, Fischer , before list available remedies, plaintiffs’ concerns bringing suit foreign forum, expert testimony from both sides whether those cerns enough render inadequate. Fischer , F.3d at 867. In blood products litigation, heard expert testimony experienced British lawyers, some whom supported plaintiffs others who sup ported drug companies, eventually accepted fendants’ claim available alternative forum, af ter agreed accept service United King dom. re Factor VIII IX Concentrate Blood Products Litig. And Kamel F.3d defendant *22 expressly consented to Saudi Arabia’s jurisdiction and then submitted the affidavit expert in Saudi Arabian law to assure that Saudi law recognize defend ant’s consent jurisdiction have jurisdiction even without consent. Id. Once again note that defendants here fered no evidence, no experts, and no concession. The abused its discretion by finding that Indian courts “should able exercise jurisdiction over Defendants” without placing burden demonstrate that this was so. See WL *3 (R. at Page ID 745).

To extent defendant offers information support its burden, generalized conclusion cases, involving other facts and other parties, have determined adequate Memoran dum Support Defendants’ Motion Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (R. p.21, Page ID de fendants cite cases argue India’s legal system, like ours, inherited from British, its remedies breach contract conversion are similar ours. Such generalized information does meet fendants must satisfy demonstrate realistically could sue Van Lines India. defendants’ newly introduced references Indian law fail same reason. court, attached documents purporting from Code Civil Procedure law These documents are record never pre sented court. A party appealing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal may elaborate factual allegations so long new elaborations consistent pleadings, *23 Geinosky City of Chicago n.1 (7th 2012), and we assume that same true Rule 12(b)(3) dismissal. But are not parties opposing dismissal here. They had their shot bearing burden of demonstrating that United States was an inconvenient fo rum. The question face this appeal whether dis trict properly dismissed this under doctrine non conveniens without holding their demonstrating that there was an available adequate remedy elsewhere. It did not. argues reply brief new documents do

not even address power courts exercise personal jurisdiction. We do know what they do or do not assert. relevant point made part record below never been authenticated nor sub ject adversarial process which parties an op portunity argue about meaning import.

We can conclude failed hold burden—whether heavy not—of demonstrating there alternate available ade quate this litigation.

C. also ostensibly based its veniens dismissal basis Canada offered second possible Its discussion matter, however, say: this case, there two possible forums

satisfy requirement. Mr. already filed claim Canadian arising out same course conduct gave rise *24 24 14 2484 instant case, he does argue

Canadian somehow improper. , 2014 WL 2573465, *3 (R. 55, p.5, Page ID 744). The parties never briefed issue Canadian as alternative forum, however. discussion about Can ada briefing below centered whether United States courts ought abstain from hearing this matter under Colorado River doctrine. See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States , 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976). ^[4] That doctrine allows conserve judicial resources by abstaining accepting when there parallel proceed ing elsewhere. It sometimes been applied when iden tical concurrent litigation is, as case, pending abroad. See U.S.O. Corp. , 547 F.3d Abstention under Colo rado River doctrine may be used “exceptional” circum stances would promote “wise judicial administration.” Freed v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 756 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. determinations under Colorado River doctrine

abstention are same those made when deciding whether should dismissed conven iens. Our decision Adkins v. VIM Recycling, Inc. , F.3d (7th Cir. 2011) provides concise description their Memorandum Support Defendants’ Motion Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, merely state Canada also appropriate alternate reasons indicated argument about Colorado River abstention. But such undeveloped ar guments waived. Rahn Bd. Trs. N. Ill. Univ. (7th 2015), cert. denied S. Ct. (2016). *25 process determining whether Colorado River abstention

is appropriate:

First, court must determine whether con ‐ current state federal actions are actually parallel. If so, must consider second whether exceptional circumstances justify ab ‐ stention. … Two suits are parallel Colorado River purposes when substantially same parties are contemporaneously litigating sub ‐ stantially same issues. Precisely formal sym ‐ metry unnecessary. A should examine whether suits involve same parties, arise out same facts, raise similar factual legal issues. In essence, question whether there substantial likelihood [foreign] litigation will dispose all claims pre sented in federal case. Any doubt regarding parallel nature [state] suit should resolved favor exercising jurisdiction. Id . did engage Colorado River ab

stention analysis. Nor did ever engage veniens analysis about Canada similar we scribed above Other than its first assertion Can ada possible forum, all its discussion pertained dia It true sued Canada Canadian court, again, no idea whether Canada any connection case, let alone whether they “substantially same party” ( see Ad kins 498) did offer ev idence subject Canada. *26 sum, although it within district court’s sound dis cretion suit non conveniens ( Piper Air craft U.S. 257), can do so after placing defendant demonstrate availability adequacy alternative district erred by failing properly place burden. It may after conducting proper look into adequacy along bal ancing interests, may determine dismis sal conveniens indeed appropriate. Based bare claims before court, however, such termination error. may refile their mo tion attempt meet burden. For reason VACATE decision REMAND further proceedings consistent opinion.