*1 PIPER REYNO, AIRCRAFT CO. v. PERSONAL REP THE
RESENTATIVE OF ESTATES OF FEHILLY et al. Argued
No. 80-848. October 1981 Decided December 1981* *Together 80-883, with No. Propeller, Reyno, Hartzell Inc. v. Personal Representative Fehilly al., Estates et also on certiorari same court. *3 Burger,
MARSHALL,J., Court, opinion in which delivered the I II of J., Rehnquist, JJ., joined, in Parts and and Blackmun and C. part in White, J., joined. J., concurring opinion White filed an which dissenting opin- dissenting part, post, p. Stevens, J., in filed a 261. part ion, Brennan, J., Powell, J., took no joined, post, p. in which 261. O’Connor, J., in the consider- part in decision of the cases. took no or decision of the cases. ation M. Fitzsimons
James petitioner the cause for argued J. were Charles 80-848. him No. With on the brief McKelvey, Pepperman, A. Ann Keith Jones. S. W. Gardner 'Warner for petitioner the cause argued Nancy Breg- him the briefs were J. No. 80-883. With stein.and Ronald C. Scott. argued cause and filed a brief for
Daniel C. Cathcart respondent cases.† in both opinion of the Court. delivered Marshall
Justice
place
that took
out of an air crash
Scot-
These cases arise
acting
representative
Respondent,
of the estates of
as
land.
brought
accident,
citizens killed
several Scottish
against petitioners
wrongful-death
that were ulti-
actions
mately
States District Court for
transferred to
United
Pennsylvania.
Petitioners moved to
the Middle District
ground
on the
non conveniens. After not-
dismiss
ing
Scotland,
that an alternative forum existed
District
(1979).
granted
Supp.
Court
their motions. 479
The
Appeals
for the
United States Court
Third Circuit re-
versed.
I *4 A July In a small in the commercial aircraft crashed highlands during flight Scottish from course of a charter Dillow, †JohnD. Pearce, Jr., SamuelF. Hennelly, and Thomas JohnJ. C. Walsh filed a brief Co. et al. as amici curiae Boeing for urging reversal. Thomas G. Smith filed a brief for the Law Offices of Gerald C. Stearns as amicus curiae urging affirmance. pilot passengers
Blackpool were The and five to Perth. subjects instantly. were all Scottish The decedents killed and next of kin. There were are their heirs residents, and as eyewitnesses At time of the crash accident. no to the subject plane traffic control. to Scottish air was twin-engine Piper manufactured Aztec, was aircraft, The a (Piper). Pennsylvania by petitioner Aircraft Co. by petitioner propellers in Ohio were manufactured The (Hartzell). Propeller, At the time of the crash Inc. Hartzell registered in Britain and was owned Great aircraft was (Air Trading by Navigation Co., Air Ltd. maintained by Navigation). operated Aviation, McDonald Ltd. It was (McDonald), Navigation Air service. Both a Scottish air taxi Kingdom. organized in the The were United and McDonald hangar Farnsborough, wreckage plane is now a England. investigated Department Trade the accident
The British preliminary report shortly A found after it occurred. developing spin, suggested plane after a crashed responsi- plane propeller or the was mechanical failure by report request, a this reviewed ble. At Hartzell’s was adversary 9-day Board, three-member Review which held a parties. hearing Review interested The attended all equipment and indi- of defective Board found no evidence pilot the accident. have contributed to cated that error pilot’s pilot, license who had obtained his commercial ground flying high only an earlier, over three months was height considerably re- minimum altitude lower than the quired by company’s operations his manual. respond- July probate appointed court 1977, California Gaynell Reyno the five
ent administratrix of the estates any passengers. Reyno know is not related to and does secretary legal survivors; of the decedents or their she was days attorney after tо the who filed this lawsuit. Several wrongful- Reyno separate appointment, her commenced *5 against Superior and Hartzell in the death actions claiming negligence liability.1 and strict California, Court pilot Navigation, McDonald, and the estate of the Air are not passen- parties litigation. The survivors of the five to this represented by Reyno gers separate are filed a whose estates Kingdom against Navigation, Air action the United Mc- Reyno candidly pilot’s estate.2 Donald, and the admits that against Piper the action and Hartzell was filed in the United regarding liability, capacity laws sue, States because its damages position favorable to her are more than are recognize those of law does not Scotland. Scottish strict li- ability permits wrongful-death Moreover, tort. it actions only brought by when a decedent’s relatives. The relatives may only support society.”3 sue for “loss of petitioners’
On motion, suit was removed to the United States District for the Court Central District of California. Piper then moved for transfer to the United States District Pennsylvania, pursuant Court for the Middle District of to 28 1404(a).4 § U. S. C. Hartzell moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or in alternative, to transfer.5 In quashed December the District Court service on 1Avco-Lycoming, Inc., plane’s engines, manufacturer of the was also named as a defendant. It was subsequently by dismissed from the suit stipulation. pilot’s The estate against has also filed suit in Air Kingdom the United Navigation, McDonald, Piper, and Hartzell. (affidavit See Affidavit of MacLeod, Donald Ian Kerr App. A19 submit law). ted to District by petitioners Court describing for Scottish Suits damages governed (Scotland) are Damages Act 1976. 1404(a) Section provides: witnesses, parties “For the convenience of in the interest justice, any a district court transfer civil action to any other district or brought.” division might where it have been 5The District jurisdic personal concluded that it could not assert tion over Hartzell However, consistent with it process. due decided dismiss Hartzell corporation process because amenable to would be Pennsylvania. *6 to the Middle District of the case transferred Hartzell and properly process Respondent Pennsylvania. served then Hartzell.
B May transferred, had been both the suit after ground Piper the action on the to dismiss moved Hartzell and granted The District Court these of non conveniens. balancing It relied on the test set in 1979. motions October Corp. Gilbert, 330 U. S. in Oil forth this Court Gulf (1947), companion Mut. Rosier v. Lumbermens case, and its (1947). In decisions, those Court Co., Cas. 330U. S. rarely plaintiffs be dis choice of forum should that a stated jurisdic has an alternative forum However, when turbed. in and when trial the chosen case, tion to hear oppressiveness and vexation to a de . . . would “establish proportion plaintiffs convenience,” all fendant . . . out of inappropriate [is] because of con the “chosen forum or when legal affecting the court’s own administrative siderations may, problems,” of its sound discre the court the exerсise guide swpra, at 524. To trial Roster, dismiss the case. tion, provided “private interest discretion, court the Court a list of affecting litigants, and a list of the convenience of the factors” affecting “public of the fo interest factors” the convenience supra, Gilbert, rum. at 508-509.6 private litigants included pertaining 6 The factors to the interests of the availability compulsory proof; the “relative ease of of access to sources of process obtaining attendance unwilling, for attendance of and the cost of witnesses; appro willing, possibility premises, if view would of view of action; of a priate make trial practical problems to the and all other inexpensive.” Gilbert, S., easy, expeditious at 508. case 330 U. public difficul bearing question factors on the administrative included the flowing having localized congestion; ties from court the “local interest a diver home”; trial of having controversies decided at interest the ac sity govern casе a forum that is at home law that must with the laws, tion; or unnecessary problems the avoidance of conflict in an law; burdening citizens application foreign and the unfairness of Id,., jury duty. unrelated forum with at 509. describing
After our decisions Gilbert and Koster, the analyzed began by District these the facts of cases. It observing that an alternative forum existed Scotland; agreed jurisdiction and Hartzell had to submit to the any the Scottish courts and to waive statute of limitations de- might plaintiffs fense that be available. It then stated that weight. choice of forum was entitled to little The court rec- ognized plaintiffs ordinarily that a choice deserves substan- Reyno repre- tial deference. It noted, however, that “is a foreign seeking sentative of citizens and residents a forum in *7 the United States because of the more liberal rules concern- ing products liability law,” and that “the courts have been plaintiff less solicitous when the is not an American citizen or particularly foreign resident, and when the citizens sеek to provided pro- benefit from the more liberal tort rules for the tection of citizens and residents of the United States.” 479 Supp., at 731. relating District Court next examined several factors private litigants, to the interests of the and determined that strongly pointed these priate appro- factors towards Scotland as the Although concerning forum. design, evidence testing plane propeller manufacture, and of the and is located in the United States, the connections with Scotland are “overwhelming.” otherwise parties /d, at 732. The real interest are citizens of Scotland, as were all the decedents. testify regarding Witnesses who could the maintenance of the training pilot, aircraft, the investigation of the and the accident—all essential to the defense—are Great Britain. damages Moreover, all witnesses to are located Scotland. Trial familiarity would be topography, aided with Scottish by easy and wreckage. access to the The Distriсt Court reasoned that because crucial witnesses beyond and evidence compulsory process, were the reach of and because the implead po- defendants would not be able to third-party tential Scottish defendants, it would be “unfair to Piper proceed make and Hartzell to trial in Id., this forum.” brought separate at 733. The survivors had actions Scot- against pilot, Navigation. McDonald, “[I]t land Air and parties costly if would be fairer to all and less the entire case presented jury testimony was to one with available all from Although recognized relevant Ibid. witnesses.” court Piper if trial were held the United States, and indemnity against Hartzell could file or contribution actions signifi- defendants, the Scottish it believed that there was a cant risk of inconsistent verdicts.7 public
The District Court concludedthat the relevant
inter-
strongly
pointed
also
ests
towards dismissal. The court de-
Pennsylvania
apply
termined that
law would
if
Scottish law Hartzell
the case
were tried
the Middle
Pennsylvaniа.8
result,
District of
As a
“trial
this forum
hopelessly complex
confusing
jury.”
would be
Id.,
for
734.
the court
addition,
noted that it was unfamiliar
upon
rely
experts
with Scottish law and thus would have to
country.
from that
The court also found that the trial would
enormously costly
time-consuming;
that it would be
jury duty
unfair to burden citizens with
when the Middle Dis-
7The
explained
might
District Court
if
that inconsistent verdicts
result
petitioners were held
liability here,
liable on the
basis
strict
and then
*8
required
prove negligence
to
indemnity
an
action in Scotland. More
over, even if
liability
the same standard
applied,
danger
of
there was a
that
juries
different
would find
facts
produce
different
and
inconsistent results.
Co.,
8 Under Klaxon Mfg.
Stentor
(1941),
Electric
a
that dismissal rejected explicitly this claim. Court District favorable. might possibility that dismissal lead to that It reasoned significant change did not deserve in the law unfavorable an foreign deficiency a “matter any law was to weight; in the foreign Id., at 738. forum.” with dealt
C Appeals for the appeal, States Court the United On trial. The decision remanded for reversed Third Circuit grounds. appears two alternative based on to be to reverse abused its dis- the District Court held that the Court First, analysis. conducting Second, the the Gilbert cretion appropriate the law where is never held that dismissal plaintiff. favorable to the forum is less of the alternative Appeals began the District its review of The Court analysis by noting plaintiffs choice that the Gilbert Court’s par- though weight, the real even substantial forum deserved rejected the Dis- then are nonresidents. It ties interest balancing private It found interests. trict Court’s support adequately Piper their to Hartzell had failed key if trial were be unavailable claim that witnesses would specified they the wit- held the United States: had never testimony they witnesses these nesses would call and the weight provide. gave little The Court of implead the fact that be able and Hartzell would not reasoning potential third-party this defendants, Sсottish difficulty 2d, “unfair,” would be “burdensome” but Finally, the suit at 162.9 that resolution court stated *9 slight be was 9 Thecourt verdicts claimed that the inconsistent risk of judicata. Pennsylvania of res principles cause to and Scotland both adhere would aided with significantly familiarity not be Scottish or the by viewing wreckage. topography, of also the District Appeals rejected Court Court’s factors. It that interest found the Dis- analysis public to the trict Court undue of gave emphasis application Scot- “ tish law: ‘the mere fact that the court is called to upon deter- mine foreign present legal and law does apply problem the the sort which would dismissal of case other- justify Id., before the wise court.’” properly (quoting Hoff- (CA3 1970)). Goberman, man 420 F. 2d any it that law event, believed Scottish need not applied. After its own choice-of-law the conducting analysis, Court of determined that American law Appeals the ac- govern tions both Hartzell.10 Piper and The same choice-of- against to law led it conclude that analysis apparently Pennsylvania Ohio, Scotland, and rather than are the jurisdictions with the interests in the that all greatest policy dispute, and other public interest factors trial in the United States.11 favored Appeals agreed
10 The the Court with District that Court California applied Piper, choice-of-law rules to and Pennsylvania that choice-of-law Hartzell, applied 8, supra. however, rules see agree, n. It did not “governmental analysis California used a Pennsylvania interests” and that “significant used a analysis. Rather, juris contacts” it that both believed employed dictions test, “false test. Applying conflicts” this it con Pennsylvania greater cluded that policy Ohio had a interest dis pute Scotland, than and that apply American law would both Hartzell. reasoning The court’s point on this is somewhat It states: unclear. “We have held that under applicable Pennsylvania choice of law rules jurisdictions and Ohio are the greatest with in this policy interest dis pute. follоws that public It the other should be con interest factors that Supreme sidered under favor trial in cases Gilbert Koster country this rather than 2d, Scotland.” 630 F. at 171. The Court of part analysis concluded as its choice-of-law greatest United had policy dispute. States See interest n. It supra. apparently necessarily im- believed that this conclusion plied that the public pointed toward interest factors trial in the United States. *10 246 Appeals the Court of would it that event, appears
In any Court had bal- properly if District even have reversed The court stated: interests. and private anced the public would work change the dismissal that is apparent “[I]t strict liability that the plaintiff’s law so the applicable from But... a dis eliminated the case. claim be would conveniens, trans statutory non like a forum missal for convenience, result in a not, its fer, despite ‘should law.’ when American law Only in the applicable change would, or the foreign jurisdiction when is not applicable, of law, plaintiff its choice give as a matter of own here, which she is entitled benefit of the claim to (footnote 630 at 163-164 justified.” 2d, dismissal be Texaco, omitted) Inc., DeMateos 562 F. 2d (quoting (CA3 (1978)). 904 denied, cert. 435 U. S. 1977), that is the court decided dismissal automati- words, other if it to a law change applicable barred would lead cally the plaintiff. unfavorable to cases
We certiorari these to consider the granted ques- tions concerning proper raise doc- they application (1981).12 non conveniens. of trine U. S. forum we granted certiorari No. 80-848 to consider the question “[w]hether, brought by foreign plain- action an federal district court against defendants, plaintiffs may tiffs American defeat a motion to dis- non conveniens ground merely by showing miss on the of that the forum applied litigated substantive law that would be if the case were the dis- by trict court favorable applied is more to them than the be law that would the courts of their own granted nation.” We in No. 80-883 to certiorari question consider the grounds whether “a motion to dismiss non conveniens [should] denied whenever the alternate forum the law of recovery is less applied favorable than which dis- would be trict court.” begin In this opinion, by considering Appeals we the Court whether
properly possibility held that the change of an in law automati- unfavorable cally II, bars Part dismissal. we that the Since conclude infra. Appeals erred, we then consider its review of District Court’s Gilbert analysis to determine appropriate. whether dismissal was Part otherwise holding plaintiffs may II m The Courtof erred ground defeat a motion to dismiss on the by showing merely that the substantive law that applied in the would be alternative forum less favorable *11 plaintiffs present possibility the than that of the forum. The change ordinarily given a of substantive law should not be weight in conclusive or even substantial the non forum inquiry. conveniens expressly rejected position adopted by the
We
of
the Court
Malting
our decision Canada
Co. v. Paterson
(1932).
Steamships, Ltd.,
“We have no occasion to what law the parties governed, opinion are are of the as we III, analysis the Gilbert We it necessary believe that is discuss infra. properly in order to of dispose the cases. questions sufficiently granted on which certiorari was are broad However, justify analysis. our discussion Court’s Gilbert the District if the even issues we discuss Part III within the bounds of are not questions respect granted, with to which our consideration certiorari was limiting grant of these issues is of certio- inappropriate. not An order questions operate jurisdictional rari does not consider as bar. We questions scope outside the limited of those order when resolution See Olmstead United necessary v. proper disposition for the of the case. States, Furlaud, (1934); (1928); 293 U. 67 McCandless 277 U. S. S. 438 Redrup York, (1967). v. New U. 767 S. lay question, any it within the view of that under that, ju- to decline Court to assume the District discretion controversy. ‘[T]he . . . court will risdiction over justice cognizance if well of the case would be as take parties by remitting to their home forum.’” done (quoting Shipping Charter Co. Id., at 419-420 Tidy, Bowring, Ltd., 281 U. S. & Jones “[tjhere was no basis for further stated The Court abused District its discretion.” that the contention U.S., 423. Malting Gilbert, was decided before It is true that Canada fully was not that the doctrine crystallized However, in that case.13 Gil until our decision way validity Malting. In of Canada in no affects bert long history. origi It The doctrine non conveniens has oí fоrum *12 Braucher, Forum, Scotland, 60 in The Inconvenient Federal nated see (1947), 908, part of law of Harv. L. Rev. 909-911 and became the common 911-912; Blair, States, id., many Doctrine Non see at The of Forum (1929). Law, in L. 1 The Anglo-American 29 Colum. Rev. Conveniens See, frequently applied admiralty was also actions. doctrine federal Ltd.; Bickel, g., Malting Steamships, e. v. also Canada Co. Paterson see Applied The Doctrine of Non the Federal Courts Forum Conveniens As Admiralty, Q. in Matters of L. In v. Green 35 Cornell 12 Williams (1946), Co., Bay & Western R. 326 U. 549 the first indicated S. to be made grounds motions dismiss on oí non conveniens could forum diversity firmly when federal actions. doctrine became established GilbeH and Koster one year were decided later. forum, decisions, previous
In left unre- non conveniens the Court has 64 question Tompkins, solved the 304 U. S. whether under R. Erie Co. (1938), diversity applies state or in a federal law oí non conveniens forum Gilbert, S., 509; S., 529; Koster, case. at Williams 330 U. at U. 330 not Bay Co., 551, Green & did supra, Western R. The Court at 558-559. in each decide this issue been reached because the same have result would case under reached federal in these cases or state law. The lower courts non same law Pennsylvania conclusion: on and California forum 2d, conveniens 630 F. virtually law. See dismissals are identical to federal Thus, also, question. at 158. here Erie we need not resolve by holding
deed, that the central focus non forum implicitly inquiry recog is convenience, Gilbert may solely not be nized that dismissal barred because of the change possibility Gilbert, unfavorable law.14 Under of an ordinarily appropriate where dismissal will trial in the heavy plaintiffs imposes a burden on chosen forum the de plaintiff court, and where the fendant or the unable to offer any supporting specific of convenience reasons his choice.15 given weight possibility If were substantial of an unfa change might law, however, vorable dismissal be barred plainly even where trial chosen was inconvenient. Appeals’
The Court of decision is inconsistent with this Court’s earlier conveniens decisions in another re- spect. repeatedly emphasized Those have decisions flexibility. need to retain Gilbert, Court refused to identify specific justify require circumstances “which will or grant remedy.” either S., or denial U. at 508. Simi- larly, rejected in Koster, the Court the contention that where inquiry a trial would involve into the internal affairs of a for- eign corporation, always appropriate. dismissal was “That only is one, one, but factor which show convenience.” Bay S.,U. at 527. And Williams v. & Green Western (1946), R. Co., 326 U. S. we stated we would lay rigid govern down a rule discretion, and that “[ejach emphasis case turns its If were facts.” central Bay Co., also Williams
14 See supra, v. Green & Western R. n. *13 (citing with approval ground a Scottish case that an action on dismissed non despite in possibility change an unfavorable forum law). 15 words, In other Gilbert held that may be warranted where dismissal plaintiff forum, solely particular convenient, chooses a but not it is because in order to harass the defendant оr law. This advantage take of favorable precisely is in bar Appeals’ situation which the rule would Court of dismissal.
250 any doctrine
placed non conveniens factor, on one forum flexibility very that it so makes lose much would valuable. weight given to were if or substantial fact, conclusive change possibility non conveniens law, the of a forum virtually useless. Jurisdiction would become
doctrine
easily
requirements
result,
satisfied. As a
are often
venue
among
many plaintiffs
fo-
to choose from
several
are able
plaintiffs
Ordinarily,
forum
will select that
rums.
these
advantageous.
if
Thus,
rules are most
choice-of-law
whose
change
possibility
unfavorable
substantive law
of an
weight
given
in-
non conveniens
substantial
the forum
rarely
proper.
quiry, dismissal
be
every
Ap-
Except
below,
Federal
for the court
question
peals
held
has
this
after Gilbert has
considered
may
grounds oí
non conveniens
that dismissal on
though
applicable
granted
the law
even
the alternative
recovery.
plaintiff’s
is less
to the
chance of
favorable
g.,
Technologies Corp., 205
e.
Pain v. United
U. S.
See,
(1980);
App.
248-249,
775,
D. C.
637 F. 2d
794-795
Fitz
229,
(CA2 1975),
gerald
Texaco,
521 F.
453
Inc.,
448,
2d
cert.
(1976);
423 U.
1052
Anastasiadis
Little
denied,
S.
v. S.S.
(CA5 1965),
2d
cert.
384
S.
John,
281,
denied,
U.
(1966).16
expressly
courts
Several
have relied
on Can
Malting
possibility
ada
to hold that the
anof
unfavorable
change
of law
not,
Fitz-
itself, bar dismissal. See
should
(CA3
Technologies
16 Cf. Dahl v. United
Corp.,
632 F. 2d
1980) (dismissal
“Norwegian
predomi
affirmed where
substantive law will
the trial of
nate
this case and the
presence
pleaded
mere
of a
under
count
law
Connecticut
but which
have little chance of
not war
success does
conclusion”).
Texaco, Inc.,
But see DeMateos rant a different
562 F. 2d
(CA3 1977) (dictum)
1404(a)
(principle
§
should
transfer
change
result
oi
applicable
law is no less
grounds
to dismissal
fo
conveniens),
rum
cert.
denied,
gerald Texaco, Inc., 1959). (ED Supp. 908 Va. D'Amico, The Mina S/T only approach Appeals’ is not inconsistent of The Court but doctrine, non purpose of the with the forum possibility problems. If practical the poses substantial also weight, deciding given substantial change in were law of a ground non conveniens the on dismiss motions to analysis would quite Choice-of-law difficult. become would important, fre- extremely the courts would and become foreign jurisdic- interpret required the law quently to be to determine what have court would the trial First, tions. in apply forum, tried the chosen if case were would law apply in alter- were tried if the case would and what law compare rights, then have to It would native forum. procedures the law that would under available remedies, appropriate applied would be forum. Dismissal each be applied the alter- only that the law concluded if the court plaintiff cho- as that of the to the is as favorable native forum however, conveniens, non The doctrine sen forum. offorum complex conducting help designed part avoid to courts comparative Gilbert, stated law. As we exercises point where the public dismissal factors towards interest “untangle problems required in conflict court would foreign at 509. S., to itself.” 330 U. law laws, re- Upholding of the Court of the decision foreign problems. practical At least where sult other plaintiff defendant,17 as an American manufacturer named grounds court could not dismiss the case foreign A fact, American. might the defendant not even have to be might be abroad damages occurred plaintiff seeking for an accident that does business who process foreign service of on a defendant able to obtain holding, dismissal Appeals’ in the United States. Under the Court of less favorable if were would be barred the law the alternative forum American, and even parties are plaintiff though none of the —even of the liti subject matter absolutely though there is no nexus between the gation United States. *15 might
conveniens where dismissal lead to an unfavorable change already courts, law. The American which are ex- tremely foreign plaintiffs,18 attractive to would become even litigation more attractive. The flow of into the United congest already States would increase and further crowded courts.19 18First, Delaware, all but 6 of the 50 American Massachusetts, States —
Michigan, Carolina, Virginia, Wyoming North liability. strict —offer (1981). Liability §4016 Rep. CCH Prod. roughly Rules equivalent to liability France, American strict are Belgium, effective and Luxem bourg. Germany Japan West have a liability strict statute for pharmaceuticals. However, liability strict primarily remains an American Second, plaintiff may choose, innovation. the tort potentially, at least among jurisdictions from if he decides to file suit in the United States. jurisdictions Each of applies these its own set of malleable choice-of-law Third, jury rules. always trials are almost States, available in the United they while provided are never jurisdictions. civil law Gloss, G. Com parative (1979); Law 12 Merryman, (1969). J. The Civil Law Tradition 121 Kingdom, Even the United most civil actions arе not jury. tried before a Keeton, 1 G. Kingdom: The United Development of its Laws and Con (1955). Fourth, stitutions 309 foreign jurisdictions, unlike most American contingent courts allow attorney’s fees, and do losing parties not tax with opponents’ their attorney’s fees. R. Schlesinger, Comparative Law: Cases, Text, (3d 1970); Orban, Materials 275-277 ed. Liability: Product A Comparative Legal Foreign National Law Di and the EEC Restatement — rective, Comp. Ga. J. Int’l Fifth, & L. discovery is more extensive in American than in foreign supra, at Schlesinger, courts. R. 307, 310, and n. 33. 19In holding that the possibility change of a in law unfavorable to the plaintiff given should not be weight, necessarily substantial we also hold possibility that the of a change in law favorable to defendant should not be Respondent considered. suggests Piper and Hartzell filed the motion dismiss, simply because trial the United States would be inconve nient, but also they because believe the laws of Scotland are more favor able. argues She that this analysis should be taken into account private interests. We recognize, course, and Hartzell engaged in reverse forum-shopping. However, possibility this or dinarily should not enter into a analysis trial private court’s inter ests. If the defendant is able to presumption overcome the in favor of plaintiff by showing that trial in unnecessarily the chosen forum would be at least in decision, part, its based of The Court non on grounds dismissals between an analogy forum federal courts pursuant between and transfers Barrack, Dusen In Van 612 (1964), 376 U. S. 1404(a). § 1404(a) transfer should not result §a ruled that this Court on dictum an ear- Relying law. in the applicable a change Dusen, Van the court interpreting opinion lier Third Circuit is also to a dismissal applicable that that principle held below non conveniens 2d, 630 F. at grounds. on Texaco, Inc., 562 F. 899). DeMateos 2d, (citing n. 51 1404(a) than dismissals on are different transfers § However, conveniens. the ground *16 1404(a) of venue be- permit change § to enacted Congress was drafted the statute Although courts. tween federal conveniens, non see the doctrinе with accordance forum Sess., No. 80th 1st 308, Cong., H. R. Note, Rep. Revisor’s A127 Sess., 79th 2d 2646, Cong., R. No. (1947); A132 H. Rep. rather than a codifica- to be a revision it was intended (1946), Kirkpatrick, 349 law. Norwood U. S. tion of the common (1955). more discretion courts were given 29 District 1404(a) on grounds than had to dismiss they § under transfer Id., at 31-32. non conveniens. of forum Barrack is sim- Dusen Van The reasoning employed non to dismissals on grounds ply inapplicable forum conveniens. doc- common-law That did not discuss the case and applica- “the construction Rather, trine. it focused on the re- 1404(a). S., Emphasizing § tion” of 376 U. at 613.20 defend fact that burdensome, appropriate regardless of the dismissal is — forum. favorable may by a more ant also be motivated a desire to obtain 754, Hakedal, F. 2d 210 Cf. Kloeckner Reederei und Kohlenhandel v. A/S non (CA2) (defendant oí grounds 757 not entitled to dismissal favorable is less solely original forum because the law of the 348 stipulation, by forum), him dism’d than the law of the alternative cert. U. S. for announced rule it implicitly recognized Bаrrack at least de- 1404(a) several It cited § rule. transfer under was not the common-law statute, Barrack concluded medial that Con- purpose intended a to be could not have transfer accompanied gress Id., at 622. The statute was a law. by change designed measure,” allowing easy “federal housekeeping change as a Id., unified federal at system. within a 613. The venue if change feared that a venue were accompanied by take law, forum-shopping parties would unfair ad- change standards of the relaxed for transfer. vantage rule was to ensure the and efficient necessary just operation of the statute.21 do not of an
We
hold that
possibility
unfavorable
in law should never be a
change
relevant consideration in a
non conveniens
if
inquiry.
course,
Of
the remedy
by the alternative forum is so
provided
clearly
or
inadequate
is no
unsatisfactory
all,
it
at
remedy
unfavorable
change
law
be
may
given
weight;
substantial
the district
court
concludе that dismissal would not be in the inter-
justice.22
ests
these
cases,
remedies that
however,
1404(a)
§
cisions under
in which lower
“strongly
courts had been
inclined to
protect plaintiffs against
accompanied
the risk that
might
transfer
prejudicial change
applicable
S.,
state laws.”
U.
n. 26.
frequently
These decisions
rested on the assumption
change
that a
in law
would have been
conveniens,
unavoidable under
common law forum
1404(a).
could
See,
§
but
be avoided
g.,
under
e.
v. Gibraltar Enter
Greve
(NM
Inc.,
1949).
prises,
Supp.
85 F.
*17
21The United
Appeals
States
of
Court
for the
Circuit has ex
Second
pressly rejected the
governing
pursuant
contention that rules
transfers
to
1404(a)
§
govern
also
non conveniens dismissals. Schertenleib v.
forum
Traum,
would be Scottish may category. Although the relatives of the decedents this liability theory, although rely on a strict and be able to may potential damages smaller, there is no their award danger they deprived any remedy will be or treated unfairly.
Ill Appeals rejecting The Court of also erred the District (cid:127) analysis. Court’s The Court of stated that Gilbert weight given plaintiff’s more should have been to the choice analysis forum, and criticized the District Court’s private public However, and interests. the District Court’s regarding plaintiff’s decision the deference due choice of appropriate. forum was we do not believe Furthermore, weighing that the District abused its discretion private publiс interests.
A acknowledged ordinarily The District Court that there is strong presumption plaintiff’s in favor of the choice of forum, only private public which be overcome when the in- clearly point terest factors towards trial the alternative presumption applies held, forum. It however, with plaintiff parties less force when the or real interest are foreign.
The District Court’s distinction between resident or citizen plaintiffs foreign plaintiffs fully justified. Koster, is In plaintiff’s the Court indicated that a is enti- choice of forum greater plaintiff tled to deference when the has chosen the home forum. 330 S.,U. has 524.23 When the home forum Texaco, Inc., (Del. Ltd. 1978) (court dismiss, 78 R. D. 445 refuses Ecuador, where alternative forum tri- it is Ecuadorean unclear whether case, bunal will hear the generally and there Ecuadorean is no codified asserted). legal remedy unjust for the enrichment and tort claims 23 Koster, conveniences, we stated a real any balancing that “[i]n showing plaintiff convenience will who has sued in his hоme forum *18 256 that this to assume choice is con-
been it is reasonable chosen, however, is this as- foreign, the plaintiff venient. When Because central pur- is much less reasonable. sumption non conveniens is to ensure that inquiry pose any choice deserves plaintiff’s trial a convenient, foreign less deference.24 the defendant have shown.”
normally outweigh the inconvenience Compania Packers v. S., & Co. Colombiana 330 U. at 524. See also Swift (1950) (“suit by Caribe, 684, a United States citizen del 339 U. S. 697 brings very force considerations different against foreign respondent into foreigners”); Malting v. from those in suits Canada Co. Paterson between (“[t]he Ltd., S., recognizing unqualified 421 rule an Steamships, 285 U. at admiralty jurisdiction foreigners in suits between discretion to decline appears supported by an line of decisions the lower fed to be unbroken courts”). eral opinion, 731; correctly Supp.,
As the noted in its 479 F. District Court 10, routinely given supra, see also n. the lower federal courts have less See, g., weight foreign plaintiff’s Founding to a choice of fоrum. e. 402, 408, Scientology Verlag, App. Church D. 175 U. S. C. 536 F. 2d 429,435 Int’l, (1976); Hong Kong Paper Operations Consultants Ltd. v. SS (CA9 Amber, Texaco, 667, 1975);Fitzgerald Inc., 513 F. 2d 672 521 F. (CA2 448, 1975), denied, (1976); 2d 451 cert. 423 U. 1052 Mobil Tankers S. Co., 611, (CA3), denied, Co. v. Mene Grande Oil 363 F. 2d 614 cert. 385 (1966); (France), Supp. U. S. 945 Ionescu v. E. F. Hutton F. & Co. 465 (SDNY 1979); 24, 139 Corp., Supp. Michell v. General Motors 439 F. 27 (ND 1977). Ohio A be'given dispositive weight, citizen’s forum choice should not however. Technologies 229, See Pain v. Corp., App. United 205 U. D. C. 252- S. Bros, 253, Arizona, 775, 637 F. 2d (1980); 796-797 Inc. v. Mizokami (CA9 Baychem Corp., 1977), denied, 556 F. 2d cert. 434 U. S. (1978). Citizens or residents than for deserve somewhat more deference eign plaintiffs, automatically but dismissal should when not be barred plaintiff has filed suit in of con always, his home As if the balance forum. suggests unnecessarily veniences that trial in the chosen forum would be burdensome for court, proper. the defendant or the dismissal is 2d, Pain Technologies See v. United at 797 Corp., supra, at Note, (citizenship convenience); proxies residence see also are. for Courts, Forum Non Conveniens and American Plaintiffs in the Federal U. Chi. L. Rev. 382-383 Respondent argues ju- plаintiffs ordinarily that since file suit will
B The non conveniens determination is committed to may the trial court. It the sound discretion of be reversed only a clear abuse of when there has been discretion; where public private all relevant the court has considered and inter- balancing of these factors, est and where its factors is reason- able, its decision deserves substantial deference. Gilbert, S., 511-512;Roster, S., U. at 531. U. the Here, Appeals expressly acknowledged Court of that the standard examining of review was one of abuse of discretion. In the analysis public private District Court’s interests, Appeals sight however, the Court of seems to have lost judgment this rule, and substituted its own for that of the District Court.
(1) analyzing private interest factors, the District Court stated that the connections with Scotland are “overwhelm- ing.” Supp., 479 F. at 732. This characterization be exaggerated. Particularly respect somewhat with to the question proof, pri- of relative ease of access to sоurces of point respondent vate interests in both directions. em- As phasizes, concerning design, records manufacture, and testing propeller plane are located in the United greater proof States. She would have access to sources of liability negligence relevant to her strict if theories trial were held here.25 not act However, the District Court did risdiction that law, strong pre- offers the establishing most favorable sumption in favor of both foreign plaintiffs home and will ensure that de- always fendants will highest possible held to of account- standard ability purported for their However, wrongdoing. accorded deference plaintiffs choice of guarantee forum has that the never been intended to plaintiff will be able supra, to select govern the law that will the case. See at 247-250. future, In the where problems presented, similar district courts are might subject dismiss agree corporations the condition that defendant provide the records plaintiffs relevant to the claims. unreasonably concluding evidentiary problems that fewer posed large if trial would be were held Scotland. A proportion of the relevant evidence is located Great Britain. problems proof found that the Court of given any weight
could not be because and Hartzell specificity they failed to describe with the evidence would not if *20 be able to obtain trial were held the United States. It suggested seeking that defendants non conveniens identifying dismissal must submit affidavits the witnesses they testimony pro- call and the these witnesses would vide if the trial were held the alternative forum. Such de- necessary.26 Piper tail is not and Hartzell have moved for precisely many dismissal because crucial witnesses are lo- beyond compulsory process, cated the reach of and thus are identify Requiring difficult to or interview. extensive in- vestigation purpose would defeat the of their motion. Of provide enough course, defendants must information to en- parties’ аble the District Court to balance the interests. Our examination of the record convinces us that sufficient in-
26The
Appeals
United States Court of
for the Second Circuit has ex
pressly rejected
Fitzgerald
Texaco, Inc., supra,
requirement.
such a
v.
451,
n.
cases,
3.
In other
despite
dismissals have been affirmed
the fail
provide
ure to
detailed affidavits.
See
Oil
v.
Farmanfarmaian
Gulf
Corp.,
(SDNY
910,
(CA2
437 F. Supp.
1977), aff'd.,
924
formatiоn was here. evidentiary describing problems they affidavits the mitted if trial held in United would face were the States.27 correctly problems The District Court concluded implead posed by inability potential third-party to de- clearly supported holding fendants the trial Scotland. Navigation, pilot’s Air Joinder of the estate, McDonaldis petitioners’ presentation Piper crucial to the If defense. by and Hartzell can show that accident was caused not design negligence pilot, rather defect, but plane’s company, they or the owners, charter will be relieved liability. of all if true, course, It is that Hartzell and they found after were liable a trial the United States, could indemnity against an for institute action or contribution these parties in Scotland. It would be far more convenient, how- ever, resolve all claims one trial. The Court of rejected argument. Forcing petitioners rely this on ac- indemnity for tions or contributions would be “burdensome” Finding but 2d, not “unfair.” 630 F. at 162. that trial *21 plaintiff’s the chosen forum would be burdensome, however, support grounds is sufficient to dismissal on of non conveniens,28
(2)
relating
The District Court’s
of
review the factors
to the
public interest was also reasonable. On the
of
basis
its
27
Cert,
Scott,
See Affidavit of
App.
Ronald C.
to
for
Pet.
of Hartzell Pro
Cert,
peller, Inc., A75; Affidavit
McKelvey,
of Charles
App.
J.
for
to Pet.
of Piper Aircraft Co. If.
provided
The
affidavit
to the
Court
District
Piper states that it would call
following
the
witnesses:
the relatives of the
decedents;
the owners and employees McDonald;
persons responsi
of
the
ble for the training and licensing
pilot;
persons
responsible
the
for
servicing
maintaining
and
aircraft;
employ
and two
three
or
of its own
ees
in
design
involved
and manufacture of the aircraft.
28 See Pain v. United Technologies
Corp.,
C.,
App.
U.
S.
D.
2d,
(relying
at 790
argument
similar
approving
in
dismissal of
arising
action
helicopter
out of
place Norway).
crash that took
if the case were tried
that
it concluded
analysis,
choice-of-lаw
law
Pennsylvania
of Pennsylvania,
District
Middle
to Hartzell.
It
law
stated
and Scottish
Piper
to
apply
would be
to
confusing
sets
laws
two
involving
that
trial
familiarity
own lack of
with Scot-
noted its
It also
jury.
clearly
of these
was
problems
ap-
tish law. Consideration
Gilbert; in that case we
held
that
explicitly
under
propriate
law
towards dismissal.29
foreign
pointed
to apply
need
that the District Court’s choice-
found
The Court of Appeals
incorrect, and that American law would
was
of-law analysis
Thus,
lack of
Piper.
familiarity
Hartzell
both
apply
if the
problem.
would not be
Even
with
law
foreign
all
in-
correct, however,
other public
conclusion
Appeals’
favored trial
Scotland.
terest factors
in this
has a
interest
very strong
litigation.
Scotland
All
its
decedents were
airspace.
accident occurred
all
Hartzell,
from
Piper
potential plain-
Scottish. Apart
either
or
As
tiffs
are
Scottish
we
English.
and defendants
Gilbert,
stated in
there is “a local interest
localized
having
decided at hоme.”
330 U.
at 509. Re-
S.,
controversies
American
citizens have an interest
spondent argues
that American
are deterred from
manufacturers
ensuring
defective
and that additional deterrence
producing
products,
if
might be obtained
Hartzell were tried
United
could
of both
States,
they
where
be sued on the basis
and strict
incremental
negligence
liability. However,
deterrence that would be
if this trial
held
an
gained
were
29Many
apply
have held
the need
decisions
g.,
e.
foreign
Growers
See,
law favors
Calavo
dismissal.
California
Belgium,
(CA2
F. 2d
1980),
denied,
American court is The American simply justify in is not sufficient interest this accident judical time and commitment resources enormous that required inevitably if thе case were to be tried here. would
IV holding Appeals possibility in Court of erred that change ground in of an unfavorable law bars dismissal on the rejecting in non conveniens. It also erred the Dis- analysis. properly trict The District Court’s Gilbert respondent’s presumption in that the favor of the decided applied forum choice with less than maximum force because parties foreign. the real in interest are It did not act unrea- private sonably deciding pointed interests towards unreasonably deciding trial in Scotland. did it Nor act public interests favored trial Thus, Scotland. judgment of the Court of is
Reversed. part took no in the decision of these Justice Powell cases.
Justice O’Connor took no part consideration or de- cision of these cases.
Justice White, concurring part dissenting part. join opinion. I Parts I and II of the However, Court’s like pro- and Justice I Justice Brennan Stevens, ceed to deal with the issues Part III. To that addressed I am in extent, dissent.
Justice Stevens, with whom joins, Justiсe Brennan dissenting. only question presented No. 80-848, one for review to
this Court: brought
“Whether, an action in district court federal by foreign plaintiffs against defendants, American plaintiffs may ground defeat a on the motion to dismiss *23 by showing merely that the sub- non conveniens forum litigated applied if the case be were law that would stantive to them law more favorable than the is the district court by applied their nation.” courts own that would be Cert, p. 80-848, i. No. Pet. for grant of see certiorari, limited its 80-883, the Court No. question: the same 450 U. S. grounds of dismiss on
“Must a motion to law of whenever the the alternate conveniens be denied recovery than that which ” favorable forum less Cert, applied court? Pet. for district would p. i. 80-883, in No. nega- agree question
I should be answered that this Having question, simply I remand tive. decided further to the Court of for consideration the case correctly question the District Court decided whether Pennsylvania to liti- was not convenient which Pennsylvania gate against company plane was a claim that a designed defectively Pennsylvania. and manufactured