This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELENA CELLA FORTANER, Personal

Representative of the Estate of Maria Del

Carmen Fortaner Nou, Deceased; et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55951

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01149-GAF-RZ

MEMORANDUM*

ANTONIO GARCIA MARTIN, As

Special Administrator of the Estate of

Laudencio Garcio Martin, Deceased, As

Special Administrator of the Estate of

Elena Garcia Hernandez, Deceased, and

As Special Administrator of the Estate of

Carlos Garcia Hernandez, Deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55952

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01150-GAF-RZ

FILED

JAN 10 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

KIM IVONNE TATE PEREZ,

Individually; et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55959

D.C. No. 2:09-cv-07285-GAF-RZ

ANA MARIA SANCHEZ DIEZ,

Individullay and as Personal

Representative of the Estate of Betsabe

Ibanez Sanchez, decedent; et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55960

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01148-GAF-RZ

VIRGINIA PINO HERNANDEZ

MARTIN, Individually and as

Representative of the Estate of Zenaida

Hernandez Martin, Deceased; et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

No. 11-55961

D.C. No. 8:10-cv-01262-GAF-RZ
3

 Defendants - Appellees.

CARMELO ALVARADO CASTRO, as

personal representative of the estate of

Robert Alvarado Coruna and AVELINA

CORUNA DIAZ, as co-personal

representative of the estate of Robert

Alvarado Coruna,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55962

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01114-GAF-RZ

MARIA LORETO GONZALEZ

CABANAS, as co-personal representative

of the Estate of Clara Diaz Gonzalez,

deceased and JOSE LUIS DIAZ DIAZ, as

co-personal representative of the Estate of

Clara Diaz Gonzalez, deceased,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55963

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01120-GAF-RZ
4

GLORIA ESTER DIEPA MARTIN, as

personal representative of the Estate of

Oscar Gabriel Alvarado Diepa, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55964

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01107-GAF-RZ

HIGINIO IBANEZ FRACA, as personal

representative of the estate of Betsabe

Ibanez Sanchez, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55966

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01108-GAF-RZ

CARLOS BAIXERAS LLANO, as

Personal Representative and Special

Administrator of the Estate of MARIA

DEL PINO DJAZ MENDOZA, deceased;

et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

No. 11-55968

D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00576-GAF-RZ
5

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY,

 Defendant - Appellee.

JUAN DIEPA HERNANDA, as coPersonal Representatives of the Estate of

Monica Diepa Leon, deceased and

FRANCISCA LEON RIVERA, as coPersonal Representatives of the Estate of

Monica Diepa Leon, deceased,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55969

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01115-GAF-RZ

GLORIA ESTER DIEPA MARTIN, as

personal representative of the estate of

Roberto Alexander Alvarado Diepa,

deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55971

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01106-GAF-RZ
6

GLORIA ESTER DIEPA MARTIN, as

personal representative of the estate of

Roberto Alexander Alvarado Diepa,

deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55971

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01106-GAF-RZ

MARIA DOLORES FLOREZ

RODRIGUEZ, as personal representative

of the estate of Maria Lourdes Romero

Florez, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55972

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01116-GAF-RZ

SONIA MARIA CASTILLO

MARTINEZ, as personal representative of

the Estate of Maria Sonia Rodriguez Del

No. 11-55973

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01117-GAF-RZ
7

Castillo, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

JOSEFA ORTIZ PEREA, as personal

representative of the estate of Maria

Cristian Domiguez Ortiz, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55974

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01113-GAF-RZ

MARIA DEL CARMEN HERNANDEZ,

Personal Representative of the Estate of

Ruben Santan Mateo, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

No. 11-55976

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01101-GAF-RZ
8

 Defendants - Appellees.

EUGENIO NUNEZ PAVILLARD, as

personal representative of the Estate of

Jorge Nunez Piretti, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55977

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01110-GAF-RZ

SHIRLEY MANI, as Personal

Representative of the Estate of Mukesh

Bacho Mani, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55978

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01111-GAF-RZ

JOSE JESUS PLACERES PEREZ, as

Personal Representative of the Estate of

Ines Placeres Perez, deceased,

No. 11-55979

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01123-GAF-RZ
9

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

LEANDRO ORTEGA PENA,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55980

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01104-GAF-RZ

ANGEL FRANCISCO SANTA

CASTILLO, as personal representative of

the estate of Carmen Isabel Santana

Castillo, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55981

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01138-GAF-RZ
10

YOLANDA VILLANUEVA MARTIN, as

co-personal representative of the estate of

Alejandro Villanueva Santans, deceased; et

al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55982

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01139-GAF-RZ

DANIEL ESTEVEZ RUIZ, as Personal

Representative of the Estates of Susana

Marin Ramos, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55984

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01119-GAF-RZ

YOLANDA VILLANUEVA MARTIN, as

co-Personal Representatives of the Estate

of Dara Villanueva Santana, deceased and

ANGEL FRANCISCO SANTANA

CASTILLO, as co-Personal

Representatives of the Estate of Dara

Villanueva Santana, deceased,

No. 11-55985

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01140-GAF-RZ
11

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

RAFAEL MORENO PEREZ and

ANGELES CARPINTERO RUIZ,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55986

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01127-GAF-RZ

CONCEPCION MARIA DE LA PAZ

SOTO LLOVES, as personal

representative of the Estate of Cecilia

Gomez Soto, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55988

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01129-GAF-RZ
12

YOLANDA VILLANUEVA MARTIN, as

co-Personal Representatives of the Estate

of Keila Villanueva Santana, deceased and

ANGEL FRANCISCO SANTANA

CASTILLO, as co-Personal

Representatives of the Estate of Keila

Villanueva Santana, deceaased,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55989

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01142-GAF-RZ

MARIA CANDELARIA PERE MATEO,

as co-Personal Representatives of the

Estate of Ruben Daniel Sanchez Perez,

deceased and JUAN ANDRES SANCHEZ

HERNANDEZ, as co-Personal

Representatives of the Estate of Ruben

Daniel Sanchez Perez, deceased,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55990

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01125-GAF-RZ
13

MARIA JESUS MELIAN PEREZ, as

personal representative of the estate of

Araceli Yolanda Dominguez Melian,

deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55991

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01141-GAF-RZ

TEREZA SUAREZ QUEBEDO, as

personal representative of the estate of

Jose Vicente Robaina Suarez, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55992

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01126-GAF-RZ

MARIA JESUS MELIAN PEREZ, as

personal representative of the estate of

Alicia Dominguez Melian, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

No. 11-55993

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01143-GAF-RZ
14

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

YOLANDA VILLANUEVA MARTIN, as

Personal Representative of the Estate of

Alejandro Villanueva martin, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-55995

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01133-GAF-RZ

ANGELES CARPINTERO RUIZ and

RAFAEL MORENO PEREZ, her

husband,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56000

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01105-GAF-RZ
15

OZLEM ERDIL; et al.,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56001

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-07228-GAF-RZ

VICENTE GUERRERO, as personal

representative of the Estate of Gabriel

Guerrero, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56005

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01112-GAF-RZ

MARIA ESTRELLA CIGALA

MARRERO, as co- Personal

Representatives of the Estate of Jorge

Naranjo Gomez, deceased and

CONCEPCION MARIA DE LA PAZ

SOTO LLOVES, as co-Personal

Representatives of the Estate of Jorge

Naranjo Gomez, deceased,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

No. 11-56009

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01130-GAF-RZ
16

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

MARIA ESTRELLA CIGALA

MARRERO, as personal representative of

the estate of Jorge Naranjo Cigalo,

deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56012

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01128-GAF-RZ

MARIA ESTRELLA CIGALA

MARRERO, as personal representative of

the estate of Raquel Naranjo Gomez,

deceased and CONCEPCION MARIA DE

LA PAZ SOTO LLOVES, as personal

representative of the estate of Raquel

Naranjo Gomez, deceased,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

No. 11-56017

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01131-GAF-RZ
17

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

EUGENIO NUNEZ PAVILLARD, as

Personal Representative of the Estate of

Maria Eugenia Nunez Piretti, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56019

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01137-GAF-RZ

TANAUSU GONZALEZ OLIVA, As

Personal Representative of the Estate of

Tanausu Gonzalez Hernandez,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56021

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-07193-GAF-RZ

MARIANA PUYE, as Co-Personal

Representative for the Estate of Mustapha

No. 11-56024
18

Puye, Deceased and ALASAN PUYE, as

Co-Personal Representative of the Estate

of Mustapha Puye, Deceased,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-07224-GAF-RZ

MARIANA PUYE, as Co-Personal

Representative for the Estate of Sira Puye,

Deceased and ALASAN PUYE, as CoPersonal Representative for the Estate of

Sira Puye, Deceased,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56025

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-07225-GAF-RZ

MAXIMO DIAZ DELGADO, as personal

representative of the estate of Lidia

Delgado Estevez, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

No. 11-56026

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01124-GAF-RZ
19

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

JUAN DE DIOS FONT MARIN, as

Personal Representative of the Estate of

Maria Jesus Font Rodriguez, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS

CORPORATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56027

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01122-GAF-RZ

MANFRED MROTZEK, as personal

representative of the estate of Gerd

Mrotzek, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56174

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01134-GAF-RZ
20

MANFRED MROTZEK, as personal

representative of the estate of Niklas

Mrotzek, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56176

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01135-GAF-RZ

MANFRED MROTZEK, as personal

representative of the estate of Lucas

Mrotzek, deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56177

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01136-GAF-RZ

IRINA HULT, as personal representative

of the estate of Ann Marie Helene Hult,

deceased,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

No. 11-56178

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01145-GAF-RZ
21

 Defendants - Appellees.

JOHAN L. RONDONUWU, as coPersonal Representative of the Estate of

Nguni Toka Rondonuwu, deceased and

SYULL MAINSIOUW, as co-Personal

Representative of the Estate of Nguni Toka

Rondonuwu, deceased,

 Plaintiffs - Appellants,

 v.

THE BOEING COMPANY; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 11-56179

D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01146-GAF-RZ

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 3, 2012

Pasadena, California

Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the

Central District of California, dismissing 116 consolidated suits on forum non

conveniens grounds.

This litigation arises out of a 2008 airplane accident in Madrid, in which a
22

Spanair flight crashed on takeoff, killing 154 people and injuring 18 others, none of

whom were United States citizens or residents. Two hundred and four plaintiffs,

mostly Spanish nationals, brought wrongful death and personal injury actions in

various United States district courts. The complaints asserted negligence and strict

products liability claims against Boeing Company and various component

manufacturers (“Boeing”), alleging that a takeoff warning system (“TOWS”) failed

to alert the Spanair crew to misconfiguration of the plane’s wing flaps and slats. The

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the suits in the Central District

of California.

Boeing filed a forum non conveniens motion to dismiss, arguing that the suits

should proceed in Spain. The district court first found that the Spanish courts were

an adequate alternative forum. After weighing various private and public interest

factors, the district court granted the motion to dismiss. This appeal followed.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of

discretion the district court’s forum non conveniens ruling. Piper Aircraft Co. v.

Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). Finding no abuse of discretion, we affirm.

1. “At the outset of any forum non conveniens inquiry, the court must

determine whether there exists an alternative forum.” Id. at 254 n.22. This

requirement is ordinarily satisfied when the defendant agrees to submit to the
23

jurisdiction of the alternative forum, id., and Boeing has agreed to submit to the

jurisdiction of the Spanish courts. Plaintiffs argued below that the Spanish courts

were not an adequate forum because civil claims could be stayed there while criminal

proceedings were pending. But, because all Spanish criminal proceedings have

concluded, these concerns are now moot.

2. In determining whether a suit should be dismissed on grounds of forum non

conveniens, the private interest factors to be considered include:

(1) the residence of the parties and the witnesses; (2) the forum’s

convenience to the litigants; (3) access to physical evidence and other

sources of proof; (4) whether unwilling witnesses can be compelled to

testify; (5) the cost of bringing witnesses to trial; (6) the enforceability

of the judgment; and (7) “all other practical problems that make trial of

a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.”

Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1145 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Gulf Oil

Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). The district court carefully discussed

each of these factors in its order of dismissal.

Plaintiffs argue that in considering the costs of bringing witnesses to trial, the

district court did not grant proper weight to the willingness of Plaintiffs to travel to the

Central District. But, as the district court noted, the plaintiffs’ travel costs are not the

only relevant considerations; there are also costs associated with bringing other

witnesses to trial. The district court’s conclusion that the greater costs of proceeding
24

in the United States slightly favored dismissal was not unreasonable.

Plaintiffs also argue that the district court improperly focused on witnesses and

physical evidence in Spain. They characterize this evidence as unimportant because

Plaintiffs have agreed to stipulate to the negligence of the flight crew, Spanair, and

airport personnel, and their claims concern only a defect in the design of the TOWS

system. Boeing contests that any TOWS defect was the proximate cause of the

accident. It argues that the negligence of the crew and ground personnel caused the

accident and, alternatively, that the fault of various Spanish actors should reduce any

of the manufacturers’ liability. The district court recognized the parties’ differing

theories of the case, and properly found that cockpit recordings, information about the

crash, and the results of investigations by Spanish authorities would be more difficult

to access in the United States than in Spain. See Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1146-47.

Plaintiffs further argue that because Spanair has filed for bankruptcy in Spain,

the private factors no longer weigh in favor of that forum. But that filing, which

occurred after the district court’s order of dismissal, does not mean that Spanair

employees are not relevant witnesses since we could not find a part of the record

discussing whether Spanish law will limit Plaintiffs’ ability to lay claims against the

airline’s assets, insurers, or employees.

3. The public interest factors include: “(1) local interest of [the] lawsuit; (2)
25

the court’s familiarity with governing law; (3) burden on local courts and juries; (4)

congestion in the court; and (5) the costs of resolving a dispute unrelated to this

forum.” Lueck, 236 F.3d at 1147. The district court’s order also carefully balanced

these factors.

Plaintiffs argue that the district court improperly discounted California’s

interest as the site of the airplane’s manufacturer. The district court did not abuse its

discretion, however, in giving greater weight to Spain’s interest as the locale of the

crash site and home of the majority of the decedents. See Piper, 454 U.S. at 260-61.

Plaintiffs also argue that the district court inappropriately relied upon docket

congestion in the Central District in ordering dismissal. Although a district court

cannot rely solely on congestion when dismissing for forum non conveniens, it may

consider congestion as one of several relevant factors, as the court did here. See Gates

Learjet Corp. v. Jensen, 743 F.2d 1325, 1337 (9th Cir. 1984).

4. Finally, Plaintiffs argue that the district court should have retained

jurisdiction to resolve future discovery disputes. A district court’s decision whether

to place conditions on a forum non conveniens dismissal is reviewed for abuse of

discretion. Gutierrez v. Advanced Med. Optics, Inc., 640 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir.

2011). Plaintiffs have not demonstrated such an abuse. Discovery disputes are not

unusual in complex litigation, and there has been no showing that Boeing is unlikely
26

to participate in any discovery that is permitted under Spanish law or that future

discovery disputes mandate retention of jurisdiction.

AFFIRMED.