Dorothy A. Wilson and Louis P. Wilson v. Humphreys (Cayman) Limited, a Corporation, and Holiday Inns, Inc., a Corporation

BAUER, Judge, Chief Before WILL, Judge, RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.* District Senior Judge. RIPPLE, Circuit initiated this Louis Wilson Dorothy and as- The Wilsons diversity action Division, by designa- sitting * Illinois, Eastern the United Will of Hubert L. Honorable tion. District Northern Court District States long-term involved in ed a contract with American that the two defendants serted which a certain number of appeal, together with third defen- rooms Hum- dant, damages phreys’ guaranteed hotel liable to them for at a were tours, injury suffered reduced rate for American-run with connection with serious receiving in staying guest while as a American tour leaders free ac- by Mrs. Wilson Humphreys frequently American Humphreys’ hotel.1 commodations. has appellant trips Cayman listed to the in Holiday Inns moved to dismiss Islands its and subject regular advertising matter and brochures and has in- complaint due to lack of jurisdiction, and asserted that the cluded references to addition, Humphreys by plaintiffs violated hotel. advertises forum selected extensively magazines in non conveniens. national directed the doctrine forum agents potential both at travel and The district court denied these motions. travel- appellants, Humphreys printed the dis- lers. rate cards Upon application by and questions juris- brochures that it sent for further distribu- trict court certified tion to American in Indiana and and conveniens to this to various diction forum (for agents Humphreys), country. travel around the May court on Inns). (for July Holiday This and Dorothy participated and Louis Wilson July 1988. accepted appeal on organized by a tour American that left judgment of the district We now affirm the Airport Indianapolis International on Octo- part remand for further con- and group stayed ber The at Hum- sideration. phreys’ Cayman hotel in the Islands. Ac- affidavit, cording arrange- to Mrs. Wilson’s I trip were made as a result of ments appeared advertisements for the tour that BACKGROUND Arrange- travel American’s bulletin. incorpo- Humphreys (Cayman) Limited is made with American’s tour ments were Cayman Is- under the laws of the rated Ambassadair, subsidiary, payment was appel- Humphreys is a licensee of lands. Indianapolis, to Ambassadair made Inns, operates a hotel Holiday Inc. and lant Indiana. Cayman authority under Islands 30, 1984, Mrs. Wilson was On October maintains a cor- Humphreys that license. room. by assaulted an intruder her hotel Memphis, Tennessee and porate office attempted rape The intruder to rob office in Mia- operated has a reservations Wilson, inju- Mrs. and she suffered serious Inns, mi, Inc. a Tennes- Holiday Florida. spent hospital a week in a on the ries. She corporation registered and is to do busi- see Cayman and then returned India- Islands re- The record does not ness Indiana. Hospital. napolis to treated at Methodist extent of its activities veal the nature or within the state. complaint contains thirteen counts in this case. against appellants the two Humphreys participated

Since neg- charge appellants relationship The counts continuing commercial express implied war- (American) pro- ligence, breach of American Trans Air contract, ranties, negligent run breach vide accommodations for tours appel- infliction of emotional distress. Cayman As American to Islands. complaint to dismiss the on relationship, lants moved sent offi- per- matter or grounds of lack of Indianapolis at least cers to one occasion non conve- jurisdiction, sonal representatives of American. to meet with denied these mo- The district court During trip to Indiana in the of niens. summer tions, them for subsequently certified Humphreys’ representatives negotiat- but defendants, portion of the and that original of Civil Procedure American Rules 1. One of immediately. Air, Inc., appealed This court af- summary judgment, moved for Trans regarding judgment April district court's granted district court on firmed the Air, v. American Trans judg- in Wilson entered final the air carrier The district court (7th Cir.1989). Inc., 54(b) pursuant the Federal to Rule ment inquiry Our therefore appeal pursuant to U.S.C. interlocutory alienage supporting policies 1292(b). appeal and accepted the We § permit a United States District Court each issue turn. now consider jurisdiction over a citizen assume Cayman Islands.2 The Islands is Cayman II Territory.3 A citizen of Dependent British Territory “citizen Dependent is a British ANALYSIS Kingdom United and Colonies.” Subject Matter Jurisdiction A. 51(3)(a)(ii). Nationality British Act § this suit is Diversity According of a Is- to an affidavit 1332(a)(3), pro on 28 U.S.C. based § by Humphreys, attorney submitted lands is jurisdiction when the suit be vides Cayman system the Islands is the court “citizens of different States and tween Britain. In patterned after that of Great foreign of state subjects a which citizens addition, England Law of Common “[t]he parties.” ar are additional recognised applied by the Courts ... is exercise gues that district court cannot been a all cases where there not jurisdiction over because subject matter local enactment.” Cayman company incorporated a it is Cayman App. at 66. The is admin- Islands Islands, a Cayman Islands not and the appointed by governor istered a who Humphreys reaches this “foreign state.” Kingdom The British monarch. United Cayman Is by noting that the conclusion Caymanian diplomatic interests represents Britain and dependency of Great lands is responsible military for its defense. and is regard the does not the United States World Factbook 1989 independent sover as an Cayman Islands determined, federal courts Several 1989 Factbook at 56. eign. See The World discussion, although generally without jurisdiction over a power exercise in suits subject matter existed 1332 has under 28 U.S.C. foreign citizen § between citizens the United States “alienage jurisdiction.” referred to been corporations. Bally Island See Mertes, (7th 1182 615 F.2d v. Sadat Balicar, Ltd., v. 804 F.2d Export Corp. Cir.1980). type “was This (7th Cir.1986); Philan Ins. 399-400 federal courts with provide intended Inc., 712 v. Frank B. & Ltd. Hall over mat- protective jurisdiction a form (S.D.N.Y. 1989); 339, 345 Rolls F.Supp. implicating relations international ters (Canada) Cayman Airways, Ltd. v. Royce para- national interest (S.D.Fla.1985). Ltd., F.Supp. In 617 18 mount.” Id. addition, the Second Circuit concluded

“The dominant considerations compa alienage jurisdiction existed over a jurisdic- provision for Bermuda, such prompted ny incorporated in also British appear to have been: Territory. tion Ship- Netherlands Dependent Madias, Corp. v. 717 F.2d mortgage (1) part of individual Failure Cir.1983); (2d National foreigners see also British protection to 735 give states to 1981, Halsbury’s 172 treaties; ity Act 31 Statutes ... under [and] (4th 1987)(Bermuda identified as Brit ed. entanglements (2) Apprehension Dependent Territory). ish might sovereigns that ensue with other legal controver- treat from failure to unpublished one Humphreys relies on national level.” on a sies aliens support its district court decision alienage jurisdiction does not Corp. v. assertion (quoting Holdings Blair Id. (S.D.N.Y. v. to this case. Germain West Rubinstein, apply St. F.Supp. 133 500 CV-81-3945, Ltd., order Leasing, 1955)). Bay Geosource, Inc., Welttransport 764 F.2d GMBH Corporations are considered citizens (5th Cir.1985). 354 country they incorporated. Na- are in which (16 Tugman, Steamship Co. 106 tional Nationality Halsbury’s Act 3. British 118, 120-21, Otto) Panalpina 27 L.Ed. 87 ed.1987). (4th Statutes 1987). Therefore, (E.D.N.Y.1982). in fact did con Cir. review of That court regarding jurisdiction decisions of a federal matter clude that diversity requires parties two-part was a suit lacking when one of (1) corporation. inquiry: The court re the state statute al Cayman Islands (2) denying jurisdiction, lows and whether the on an earlier decision asser lied jurisdiction complies jurisdiction over a business incor tion with constitu diversity Heri See Kong, colony. a British tional due standards. porated Hong Ltd., Restaurants, tage v. Remex Elecs. House Inc. v. Continen Watch Co. Windert Inc., Group, (S.D.N.Y.1979). Funding tal F.Supp. How Sons, (7th Cir.1990); Walker & ever, the force of the Windert John decision has Inc., Dougherty, from Ltd. v. DeMert & by a more recent case been eroded (HK) (7th Cir.1987) (Illinois Finance Tetra In 401-02 the same court. Shaheen, statute); Miller, (S.D.N.Y. long-arm Wright A. F.Supp. 847 C. & Ltd. 1984), corporations Federal Practice and Procedure 1069 at the court noted that § case, these twin in denied access to American should not be one, quiries collapse because, of the status of the into as this simply courts because noted, they incorporated. court has Indiana’s statute country in which preclude hypertechnical personal jurisdiction to extends to the limit “It would seem asserting Hong Kong corporations from allowed under the due clause of the Hong v. Her simply Wallace claims our courts because fourteenth amendment. ron, formally recognized 391, (7th Cir.1985) (and Kong has not been 778 F.2d 393 denied, foreign sovereign in therein), as a cert. the United States 475 cases cited U.S. Id. 1642, (1986). at 848.4 right.” 1122, its own 106 90 L.Ed.2d 187 S.Ct. Accordingly, we shall focus on whether agree with the district We jurisdiction in this case violates assertion jurisdiction matter under section process. de present. We see no reason to 1332 is weight authority. Cer part from the process requires Due that the defendant judicial American tainly, the exercise of have “minimum contacts with [the forum] De authority the citizens of a British over maintenance of the suit does such the Territory implicates country’s pendent play ‘traditional notions of fair not offend ” Kingdom— relationship with the United International justice.’ and substantial applying al- the raison d’etre for precisely 310, 316, Washington, 326 U.S. Shoe Co. v. alienage ienage jurisdiction. applying Not 154, 158, (1945) (quot 90 L.Ed. 95 66 S.Ct. in this case would allow “form 457, 463, 61 Meyer, v. Milliken 311 U.S. Murar govern. rather than substance” 342, (1940)); FMC 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 S.Ct. Bros., 547, (2d F.2d 552 ka v. Bachrack 215 Varonos, 892 F.2d 1308, Corp. v. 1313 J.).5 Cir.1954) (Harlan, Cir.1990). The minimum contacts be acts of the purposeful the established B. Personal Jurisdiction Corp. v. Rudzew Burger King defendant. icz, 2174, 2183, 462, 475, case, 105 S.Ct. 471 U.S. diversity a federal district In a (1985). Examples of acts L.Ed.2d 528 jurisdiction over a non 85 circumstances, that, depending on the if “only a court resident defendant jurisdic might support a determination juris have such it sits would state which 332, “designing product Cope, tion include v. Turnock diction.” Judge his suit while India still rejected by India who filed Kocoras Windert also was 4. that, Niketan, Inc., Distributors, colony. v. Sari The defendant claimed Creative Ltd. British 105210, op., U.S. Dist. sovereign Mem. 1989 WL 1989 nation when India was not a because (N.D. Ill.1989) (finding at filed, LEXIS 10436 reasoning *4 complaint the court did not persuasive), and of Tetra Finance Then-Judge de- alienage jurisdiction. Harlan Luongo Judge Eng'g, in Timco Inc. v. Rex & juris- court did have termined that the district (E.D.Pa.1985) (same). F.Supp. 930 n. 8 603 diction, granted United States because the by accepting recognition an of India de facto Bros., Inc., Backrack F.2d In Murarka v. 215 country. Id. at 552. from that ambassador (2d Cir.1954), plaintiff was a citizen of 547 1244 State, advertising Burger King,

market in the forum 471 U.S. 105 S.Ct. State, establishing Denckla, channels for (quoting 2183 v. 357 U.S. Hanson regular providing 235, 253, 1228, 1239, advice customers 78 S.Ct. 2 L.Ed.2d State, marketing product the forum or (1958)); Giotis, 1283 see F.2d at also through agreed to a distributor who has 666; Wallace, F.2d agent in the forum serve as the sales “Specific jurisdiction particu- turns on a Superi Metal Indus. Co. v. State.” Asahi ‘relationship larized assessment 102, 112, Court, 480 107 S.Ct. U.S. defendant, among forum, and the 94 L.Ed.2d ” litigation.’ Saylor Dyniewski, 836 types of There are two (7th Cir.1988)(quoting F.2d Shaf- an defen over out-of-state can exercised Heitner, 186, 204, S.Ct. fer general. When de dant—specific and 2569, 2579, (1977)). 53 L.Ed.2d 683 respect fendant’s activities the state with engaged by Humphreys conduct underlying litigation to the transaction certainly satisfy Indiana is sufficient jurisdiction, the as serve as the basis specific jurisdiction. Humphreys adver- “specif said to be sertion of Indiana, tised the state of entered into a de Helicopteros ic.” See Nacionales Co long-term arrangement 8,n. Hall, lumbia v. 466 U.S. corporation provide guaranteed num- 1868, 1872 n. 80 L.Ed.2d 404 ber of used in rooms connection Inc., Ozarks, Apollo Giotis Indiana, packages departed tour from (7th Cir.1986) (discussing n. 3 representatives and sent to Indiana ne- general difference between short, gotiate the contract. denied, jurisdiction), cert. continuing established a commercial rela- 1303, (1987); L.Ed.2d 158 107 S.Ct. 94 Wal tionship company Indiana tour (same). contrast, lace, By F.2d at 393 778 expectation (providing its service activity in the when the defendant’s overall accommodation) purchased by would be state, respect its actions with simply not (and states). of Indiana other residents basis, transaction, underlying are the These contacts convince us that the district “general.” jurisdiction is said to correctly Humphreys determined Colombia, Helicopteros Nacionales de See personal jurisdiction 9, 1872 414 n. 104 S.Ct. at n. 9. 466 U.S. at Humphreys, Indiana. its own business Humphreys 1. over conduct, purposefully had availed itself “of privilege conducting activities within first, Considering Humphreys we State, invoking the forum thus the benefits it whether the contacts shall examine protections its and laws.” Hanson v. satisfy of spe the assertion with the state Denckla, 235, 253, 1228, 357 U.S. 78 S.Ct. jurisdiction.6 based on cific Jurisdiction 1240, (1958). 2 It L.Ed.2d 1283 should have process comports contacts with due such being “reasonably anticipate[d] haled into reasonably only Humphreys if should have Volkswagen court there.” v. World-Wide anticipated being haled into Woodson, 297, 567; 444 100 U.S. S.Ct. King Corp. v. Burger Indiana. Rud See Lines, see v. Carnival 897 Shute Cruise zewicz, 462, 474, 2174, 105 471 S.Ct. U.S. 377, Cir.1990) 380, (9th (in plain- F.2d 386 2183, (1985); L.Ed.2d 528 85 World-Wide suit, specific personal injury jurisdic- tiff’s Woodson, 444 Corp. v. U.S. Volkswagen corporation was found cor- 559, 567, tion over where 286, 297, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 100 S.Ct. forum, poration sent bro- Varonas, advertised (1980); 892 F.2d Corp. v. FMC forum, in fo- Cir.1990); Wallace, chures to solicited business 1308, (7th 778 1313 rum, and tickets on a commission basis purpose sold F.2d at 393-94. “ forum) (as through agents in amend- ‘privilege travel fully have availed itself of ” Serv., refiled); Travel Inc. conducting in Indiana. ed Rainbow activities’ Hall, 408, de U.S. argued Colombia v. 466 ros Nacionales It not business 1868, 1873, (1984), 104 80 L.Ed.2d 404 "the S.Ct. Indiana constitutes kind of continuous contacts," general jurisdiction. general necessary systematic Helicopte- for business registration statute would render F.2d Corp., 896 Hotels Hilton v. and, constitutionally suspect accordingly, Cir.1990) (contacts to meet sufficient reading. it such a give when hotel solic we decline to requirements Cf. state, Bishops Chicago, carried out in forum NLRB Catholic business ited there, 490, 500, contracts there and sent U.S. S.Ct. negotiations execution); & Neiman L.Ed.2d 533 Rudolf Wolff (7th Cir.) (personal record, cannot determine On this we employee of where jurisdiction established Holiday Inns had a sufficient level came to English company] defendant [an activity justify in Indiana to of conduct and meeting meeting, and a lunch forum for systematic.” the characterization “continuous that led to negotiations bulk constituted opteros Nacionales de Co Helic contract; par “A defendant’s formation lombia, at 1873. 466 U.S. prelimi in the state in substantial ticipation aspect of the Accordingly, we remand this leading to the contract nary negotiations plenary court for a more case to the district basis for been held a sufficient issue has inquiry into the contacts and conduct denied, 449 jurisdiction.”), cert. Holiday Inns in Indiana. 66 L.Ed.2d 101 S.Ct. (1980).7 Forum Non Conveniens C. an abuse of discre We review under Holiday over general the district court’s decision tion standard Inns deny a motion to dismiss record, On Reyno, conveniens. Co. based, all, if at Holiday Inns must over 235, 257, 252, 266, 70 102 S.Ct. only because the general jurisdiction, Corp. v. L.Ed.2d 419 FMC Varo inju Holiday had with the Inns connection (7th Cir.1990). nos, As arrangement with franchise

ry was its instructed, Supreme Court has par on a Humphreys. Jurisdiction based considered all rele- [Wjhere the court has with the affiliating nexus ty’s generally factors, private interest public vant noted, state, does not offend previously balancing of these factors its are “continuous process when there due reasonable, deserves sub- its decision contacts” systematic general business and deference. stantial Helicopte in the state. of the defendant 257, Co., 454 U.S. at Piper Aircraft Columbia, at 466 U.S. de ros Nacionales Furthermore, the district at 266. S.Ct. fairly a 416, “This is 104 S.Ct. at 1873. flexibility” granted “substantial court is practice.” Sedg Fields v. high standard argu- conveniens deciding a non forum 299, Ltd., 796 F.2d Risks wick Associated Biard, 486 Cauwenberghe v. ment. Van Shute, Cir.1986); at (9th see 1953, 517, 529, 108 S.Ct. cases). The Wilsons ar (collecting 380-81 L.Ed.2d 517 act, registration the Indiana gue that strong presump- ordinarily a “There is 23-1-11-6,8 to is sufficient Code Indiana of plaintiff’s choice in favor of the tion Registering general jurisdiction. support only when forum, overcome may be necessary precursor to a do business public interest factors private and the in the forum in business activities engaging trial in the alternative clearly point towards However, satisfy ... it cannot state. Co., Boeing Macedo v. forum.” demands of due standing alone ... the Cir.1982); Piper see interpretation of the an process. Such “purposeful of the n. Because F.2d at 1195 that convenience court also noted The Neiman forum, did not con- inconvenience parties that is often the is a factor acts” process con- process. a minimum Id. as of due sidered tacts to denial of amount case, analysis. that the the fact company English and that an was defendant super- repealed in 1986 8. This section might litigation have been inconven- in Illinois chapter foreign corporations ceded the dispositive, for “it would also was not ient Code, -10. sections 23-1-49-1 plaintiff to sue overseas.” inconvenient similarity between court, 265; the substantial at 102 S.Ct. at 454 U.S. present factors Mutu- the forum-related (American) Lumbermens Koster v. suit. S.Ct. the Lehman present those 330 U.S. suit and Casualty, al name, v.Oil Leh- from the apparent 91 L.Ed. As is Gulf 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. Gilbert, Cayman Islands 330 U.S. the same man involves routine- (1947). “Courts Similarly, 91 L.Ed. the here. is involved hotel as foreign plaintiff’s weight to a ly give less ato Cayman the Islands on injury occurred de- or residents Citizens forum. choice of a responded to resident who States United for- than deference more somewhat serve the United Humphreys’ advertisement 688; Macedo, 693 F.2d eign plaintiffs.” many evaluated Circuit Eighth The States. 256, 102 Aircraft, see first The court factors. the Gilbert of Nevertheless, district at 266. of witnesses the location determined misuse, such police be able court must strong- militate did not Islands forum to particular brought as actions conveniens, non applying ly for upon rigid test is no party. There harass Holi- were many the witnesses because focus when court a district (thus enabling Hum- employees day Inns argu- conveniens analyzing forum travel- cooperation their to obtain phreys Su- instead, as articulated ment; modes of obtain- testify), and other ling to Gilbert, Corp. v. Oil preme Court Gulf as admissions evidence—such inter- private public and several there are Lehman, 713 be used. depositions—could Pri- may be considered.9 est factors concluded that also 343. The F.2d at include vate interests had interest United States Iowa to sources access ease the relative party injured in the suit because compulsory availability of proof; made the travel resident an Iowa cost unwilling, and the for attendance at 344. Iowa. Id. arrangements willing, wit- obtaining attendance placed weight some Eighth Circuit if premises, view of nesses; possibility litigating in procedures fact that action; to the appropriate view would disadvantage Cayman Islands problems practical other and all not ac- there Attorneys do plaintiff. expeditious easy, a case trial of make arrangements; contingent fee cept work for may also be There inexpensive. not re- plaintiff could likely that it is enforceability aof questions action; and injury for her jury trial ceive is obtained. if one judgment post a required have been she would ob- advantages and weigh relative will she was the court because $1,000 bond fair trial. stacles Accordingly, foreigner. 345-46. Id. Public 508, at 843. S.Ct. 67 at 330 U.S. dis- the that determined Circuit Eighth the administration, judicial include interests in dismiss- its discretion abused trict court relation has a that in a forum trying cases ground of on the action the forum having matters litigation, the Id. conveniens. in that sitting by a court decided state law 508-09, at 843. 67 S.Ct. court the district say that state. Id. We cannot declining to dismiss its discretion abused ex court relied case, district the In this given the must be weight suit. Great the in Leh reasoning found clusively on the The inconven- of forum. choice Wilsons’ Ltd., 713 Cayman, Humphrey v. man the case litigating Humphreys for ience denied, 464 Cir.1983), cert. 339 the against be balanced in Indiana 172 708, L.Ed.2d 1042, 79 104 S.Ct. U.S. available procedures disadvantageous district as did recognize, (1984). We 235, 248 n. Reyno, 454 U.S. Co. v. whether has ruled Supreme never Court (1981). 252, 262, 13, 419 L.Ed.2d 70 S.Ct. non conveniens governing the criteria forum agree federal appear parties Because law governed or state federal are decision same, need not we are criteria and Indiana Tompkins, 304 Co. v. R.R. rule of Erie under the at 24. Humphreys’ Br. the matter. (1938). decide 817, 64, See L.Ed. S.Ct. U.S. Wilsons,10 I. Personal Jurisdiction Cayman Islands remedy a providing interest unwilling, over an non-resi Jurisdiction booked stemming a tour injury from for require to the defendant conforms dent left from group that for a in Indiana process only if the “defen ments of due the Wilsons Indiana, hardships and the with the fo conduct and dant’s connection litigating a case at such encounter that he should reason rum State are such their home. For from distance court great ably anticipate being haled into district reasons, that the Volkswagen Corp. we conclude these World-Wide there.” 286, 297, 559, denying Woodson, 100 S.Ct. abuse its discretion U.S. did not (1980). A defendant 62 L.Ed.2d 490 motion. non conveniens the forum ‘mini “purposefully has established

who forum contacts’ State” mum Conclusion jurisdiction in the impliedly submitted to Rudzewicz, Corp. Burger King reasons, affirm the forum. we foregoing For 2174, 2183, 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. regarding Hum- of the district court orders “ ‘random,’ (1985). merely L.Ed.2d 528 But remand to the district phreys, but ” ‘fortuitous,’ contacts with or ‘attenuated’ Holiday consideration further enough. are not Id. a forum general jurisdic- itself to subjected Inns has Further, any “assertion of at 2183. in Indiana. tion comport with [must] ” Remanded. in Part Affirmed justice.’ Id. at play and substantial ‘fair quoting Interna 105 S.Ct. at Washington, 326 U.S. Co. v. tional Shoe WILL, Judge, District Senior (1945). And, 154, 90 66 S.Ct. L.Ed. dissenting part. part and concurring in special “specific” finally, in the Holiday as to concur remand I contacts with the jurisdiction, defendant’s however, dissent, the asser- from I Inns. personal juris serve as a basis Hum- over “specific” jurisdiction tion of “arising out of or only for suits diction majority’s affirmance from the phreys and Helicopteros to” those contacts. related proper forum. Indiana is Hall, 466 de Nacionales Colombia 1872 n. 414 n. 104 S.Ct. of Illinois. Wilsons residents L.Ed.2d 404 gift from Caymans was trip to the Their purposeful con- no Humphreys it. here had paid for planned it and son. He their or with Indiana plaintiffs with the any tacts nor Wilsons Neither the son suit, from arises acts to this related Humphreys, in Indiana contacts entirely in the place events that took He States. else in the United anywhere could not Humphreys Cayman Islands. American, and trip through booked anticipated being haled reasonably have influenced he was evidence that is no there Indiana, forcing Hum- into court Humphreys said or by anything any way in an Indiana this case to defend phreys or even did, he selected substantially fair or is far from courtroom fact, to be hotel. that it was knew just. clear, majority recog- as the record trip for the were nizes, “arrangements the Wilsons’ with Any and all contacts were to this lawsuit as a result of advertisements made in Indiana related son Ameri- American’s, travel and Humphreys’, in American’s appeared not tour as admittedly made with did act Arrangements were can not bulletin. authority to con- Ambassadair, no subsidiary, American had agent. tour American’s Humphreys and and bind Ambassa- firm reservations payment was made and American had to do so. purport it did not Majority op. at dair....” Reyno, 454 U.S. Co. v. that, weight. See these disad- recognize extent to the 10. We 70 L.Ed.2d sub- grounded in the vantages differences Boeing Islands, they may Macedo be law of stantive given conclusive, Cir.1982). some, or not but substantial hold, today, that majority as the does Humphreys To reservations all to submit may properly exercise Indiana courts for confirmation.1 is Humphreys over jurisdiction personam Humphreys could how I can understand restaurant, hotel, any foreign to hold haled into to be expected reasonably have provid- facility service or or other museum federal, to re- court, state or Indiana an for U.S. er, reservations confirms which contract arising from its dispute solve and com- operators tour agents and travel Air, contract Trans American with oper- and tour agents those travel pensates Indiana, had sold if it or negotiated (a fre- arranging reservations ators arises this case But in Indiana. products subject to the is typical practice), quent and and Humphreys between dispute from ex- should and courts jurisdiction American. U.S. and Wilsons, Humphreys not tort to defend products into them pect sell to be haled not Humphreys did by contacts brought no U.S. Indiana, Humphreys claims any other suits or in Indiana Wilsons notwithstanding that the ho- This, whatsoever with guests. States. in the United anywhere else no provider has had service or other tel forum, any guest in U.S. dealings with the that Indiana suggestion majority’s principal/agent relation- no that there was here because jurisdiction have courts agent or tour the travel ship it and between continuing com- “Humphreys established dealt, solely guest whom operator with tour an Indiana relationship with mercial events all acts though and even ser- that its expectations company with the complaint occurred guest’s by residents purchased alleged would vices Australia, states),” majority op. Majorca, at Timbuktu, Bali, Japan, (and other reasonably should where, “Humphreys where-have-you, addi- Tahiti or into court being haled anticipated have and relevant records tion, the witnesses all wholly me as Indiana,” strikes id. at are located. as well as the facts with inconsistent global kind process. of due requirements endorses, my opinion, majority hun- undoubtedly serves Humphreys test and contacts fails the minimum both U.S. tourist even thousands dreds or fundamental with the at odds reserva- year as result guests each comport requirement that U.S. and other by American made tions I be- justice.” substantial play and “fair Every agencies. and travel operators tour litigate compelling lieve agency has organizer or travel tour U.S. be- unanticipated, unfair and in Indiana lines, hotels, bus foreign innumerable process. Cf. Asahi of due yond the bounds etc., services, it maintains with which guide Court, 480 Superior Indus. Co. Metal It arrangements. continuing commercial 1026, 1034, 94 102, 114, 107 S.Ct. U.S. however, if Hum- surprising, (“The unique (1987) burdens L.Ed.2d provid- foreign any service phreys or other defend oneself upon who placed one that, merely its result of anticipated er sig- legal system should foreign agents and with- travel contacts assessing the reasonable- weight in nificant defending law- more, up wind might out long stretching the arm ness guests in U.S. brought its suits borders.”). national over courts. inquiries re- Ltd., and handle the hotel Developments, mote quests Fordyce Hill v. Round 1. See reservations, else- Cir.1978) (Jamaican York (2d did New hotel States, York jurisdiction of New where the sales in the United itself where not agent, contracting power with a travel to con- not have the representative did courts the independent contractor agent reservations). Compare travel Tanner firm Gelfand own hotel at its from the Cir.1967) (2d leased rooms Tours, Ltd., Motors Deepdene & Tennis risk); Hotel Kopolowitz v. agent whose (involving defendant a nonforum (Bermuda (S.D.N.Y.1979) Club, F.Supp. 677 power to confirm reserva- New York had in tions). York jurisdiction of New to did not submit hotel pro- representative to by engaging a sales courts given conclusive or even not be substantial Non Conveniens II. Forum non conveniens in weight in the forum holding that Indiana’s to addition In quiry.” Piper Reyno, Co. the Humphreys, statute reaches 235, 247, 102 252, 261, 70 L.Ed.2d finds, Eighth did the Cir- majority also (1981) (availability liability strict Cayman, Humphrey in Lehman cuit, not, Pennsylvania did but not Scotland Cir.1983), Ltd., the that 713 F.2d 339 itself, con- dismissal for bar forum all the witnesses are the hotel and that fact veniens). See also id. at 252 n. Islands, all Cayman in the located n. S.Ct. at 264 rise to this case took giving the events by other considera- outweighed note, addition, place, although is that I would limited availabil- allegedly the tions such as have been assum- apparently the Wilsons arrangements contingent fee ity Indiana, apply, local law would that Islands, Cayman the ne- in the jury trials may Although may or be true. not bond, preroga- plaintiffs’ the cessity of a issue, it majority does not discuss the is forum, and the hard- their tive to choose question, and important an of laws conflict plaintiffs litigating ship for the one, Cayman possibly a difficult (where alleged their cause Cayman Islands govern should Islands or Indiana law arose). disagree. respectfully I of action Aircraft, 454 U.S. at trial. See (“The doctrine of 102 S.Ct. at 263 problems forum serious are a number of There non conveniens designed ... is First, the in Indiana. trying this case conducting complex exer- help courts avoid defendant, tort, all alleged of the site law.”). comparative The answer to cises plaintiffs and other than the witnesses depends on Indiana’s question, Islands. are in the the records all rules, only may determine not choice-of-law Humphreys far out- The inconvenience liability right and the applicable law to the Wilsons any inconvenience weighs right to Mr. Wilson’s sue. jury to a but also case where arose. try the holding, as it seems to majority If the Second, undoubtedly citizens Indiana by jury, to trial not suggest referring fo- home an interest convenient have only Indiana courts And, permits, Indiana process if due rum. ap- law that Indiana substantive but also providing such a an interest may have opinion ought I not plies, then believe litigate citizens who choose to for its it, explain say so and but to assume should it is difficult to conceive But there. why. its citi- Indiana or real interest either what allowing this problem The Wilsons A fourth have in this ease. zens Lehman, it is by con- is that likewise of Illinois. proceed Indiana citizens were, least, how trast, troubling citizens to me an plaintiffs unclear and Humphreys, against judgment state. of the forum Indiana outcome, would en- should that be undoubtedly Third, while it would which, majori- again, the issue forced —an try this case advantage to Wilsons’ certainly I would ty’s opinion overlooks. (and Indiana before an Indiana law under desiring Humphreys, to continue hope that is, why they presumably, jury) —which tourists, recognize to attract U.S. it there —the differences to file chose might be any judgment that respond to Indiana law between have identified parties asserting jurisdic- it. But against entered not Cayman Islands are law of the against entering judgments tion over either justification in themselves entities, have no many of whom foreign long- to assert courts States, at best assets the United finding arm speculative practice. in this case favors inconvenience balance majority and the Both the Indiana trial. III. Conclusion weight given too much court have district probable conse- noting It is worth possibility of a these differences. “The Many majority’s decision. ordinarily quences should change in substantive law foreign travelers. frequent are Americans al., PRIDE, et L. every time David courts If U.S. Plaintiffs-Appellants, dispute with tourist an American ongo- has an provider foreign service organiz- tour an American ing contact with CORPORATION, Illi- RIVER a lot VENANGO going to see are agent, we er or travel Company, Railroad Gulf foreign Central one, nois this as such more lawsuits Industries, Incorporated, also likely protect them- IC will providers service Harry Corporation, as known Whitman exposure increased from their selves and Richard Bruce, Henry Borgsmiller, insisting on and/or higher rates charging Bessette, Defendants-Appellees. contracts in their provisions exculpatory Americans. with No. 89-2070. jurisdic- finding no U.S. recognize I Appeals, Court States United Ameri- require might this like in cases

tion Circuit. Seventh to return Wilson Mrs. like can travelers ex- traumatic they have places 13, 1989. Dec. Argued remedies pursue periences order 25, 1990. Decided Oct. are not considera- wrongs. Those alleged juris- however, relevant tions, that are 5, 1990. Nov. As Amended so far stretched diction, only can believe, has, I process allows due as case. in this far far too stretched been travel- U.S. tourists undisputed that It is are sub- countries foreign voluntarily in jurisdiction of to the laws

ject Consistent countries. of those

courts principle, globally applied cannot be fifty states jurisdic- give U.S. courts so as to cases in tort foreign defendants tion over entirely place took from events arising unrelated foreign soil U.S. forum. any contacts with

defendants’ due bounds Believing case, I exceeded far

have been finding would reverse addition, that believe, in I Humphreys. a dismissal Humphreys’ motion denying constituted conveniens

for forum also reverse discretion

abuse of contacts basis, if even

on that I con- process. satisfied

with Indiana majority’s conclu- however, cur, Holiday Inns.

sions as

Case Details

Case Name: Dorothy A. Wilson and Louis P. Wilson v. Humphreys (Cayman) Limited, a Corporation, and Holiday Inns, Inc., a Corporation

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Date Published: Nov 21, 1990

Citation: 916 F.2d 1239

Docket Number: 88-2495, 88-2496

Court Abbreviation: 7th Cir.