Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court h as determined th at this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not prece dent except under the limite d circumstances setforth in 5 T H C IR . 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 41305 Su m m ar y Cal endar

REN ATA LU I SA S I LVA PI SCETTA O’ KE EFE; I SABELLA PI SCETTA O ’ K E E F E ; B A R R YO ’ K E E F E ; JA N IC E O ’ K E E F E , P la in tiffs
–A p p e lla n ts , v. N O BL E D RI LLI N G CO RP O RA TI O N , do i ng bus i ne s s a s N o bl e D r i l l i ng S e r v i c e s I n c . ; NOB L E DR I L L I NG U. S

. I NC. ; NOB L E DR I L L I NG I NTERNAT I ONAL I NC. ; NOBLE DRI LL I NG EXP LORA TI ON COM PA NY; N O B L E D O B R A S IL L T D .; N O B L E D R IL L IN G (P A U L W O L F F ) L T D .; N O B L E D R IL L IN G S E R V IC E S IN C .; N O B L E IN T E R N A T IO N A L , L T D

. , D efen da n t s–T h i rd P art y P l ai n t i f fs–A pp el l ees , S CHL UM BE RG ER L I M I T ED , T h i rd P art y D efen da n t s–A pp el l ees.

A p p ea lf

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e Sou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 3: 05- C V

- 688

B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es . P E R C U R I A M: * United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

15, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 41305

R. 47.5 .4. 2 The O ’ K e e fe s , th e fam i l y o f a n Aus t r al i an nat i o nalw ho di e d whi l e w o r ki ng as a di rect i on aldri l l er of f t h e coast of B razi l , ap pea l f rom a di st ri ctcourtorder di sm i ssi n g t h ei r w rongfuldeath acti on f or f orum n on conven i en s. Th e O ’ K eefes argu e tha tthe di st ri ctcou rterr ed by( 1) fai l i n g t o defer t o a previ ou s den i alof
a m ot i on t o di sm i ss for fo ru m n on conven i en s i ssued by an ot h er di st ri ctcourt j u dg e i n t h e case; ( 2) gran t i n g t h e m ot i on t o di sm i ss f or f orum non conven i en s;
an d ( 3) fai l i n g t o i n cl u de su ffi cien tcondit i on s i n i t s or der di sm i ssi n g t h e case. Fort he r e as o ns di s c us s e d be l o w , w e af f i r m t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s o r de rdi s m i s s i ng th e ca s e . I P et er John O ’ K eefe, an A u st ral i an na t i on alan d resi den tof B razi l , di ed
w h ile w o r k in ga s a d ir e c t i o n a ld r ille ro ff th e co a s t o f B r a z il a fte ra lle g e d ly receivi n g i n ad equ ate m edi calcare aboa rd t h e No b le Pa u l W o lff

. Th e No blePaul W o lff is a s e m is u b m e r s ib le d r illin grigo w n e da n do p e r a te db yP a u l W o lff, a sub si di ary o f th e N obl e C orporati on , an d N obl e an d severalof i t s af f i l i ated Bra z i l i an c o r po r at i o ns a r e de fe nda nt s i n t hi s c as e . N o bl e ha s b r o ugh tt hi r dp a r t yc la im s a g a in s tS c h lu m b e r g e rL im it e d , t h e p a r e n tc o m p a n yo f O ’K e e fe ’s
em pl oye r , Schl um ber gerSer vi c os de Pet r ol eo Lt da. , a Braz i l i an c om pany. O ’ K eefe w en tt o t h e i n f i rm ary aboa rd t h e ri g w i t h com p la in ts of a sor e t hro atand w as t r eat ed byD r . C ar l a B as t os , a B razi l i an doc t orem pl oye d by N obl e. H e r ec eived m edi c alt r eat m entand r et urned t o hi s quart er s. L at ert hat
ev en i n g, he retu rn ed to t h e infi rm a ryu n a b l e to b rea th e, a n dh e w e n t into
c ar di ac ar r es tand pas se d aw ay. T h e survivi n g m em b e rs of O ’ K eefe’ s fam i l y f

i l ed su i tagainstN obl e, al l e gi ng t hatO ’ K e e fe ’ s de at h was c aus e d b y i nadequ ate e m e r ge nc y c ar e . The
c a s e w a s fi r s ta s s i g n e d t o J u d g e S a m u e l B . K e n t . J u d g e K e n td e n ie dN o b le ’sN o. 08- 41305

Nob le’s thir d-partycompl aint included other corporation s affiliated with 1 Schlumberger; however, onlySchlumb erger Limitedis involved in this appeal. 3 m ot i on t o di sm i ss f

or f orum non conven i en s, f i n di n g t h at t h e O ’ K eefes’choi ce of fo r u m s h o u ld n o t b e u p s e t b e c a u s e b o th p a r tie s h a dp r e s e n te de q u a llycr e d ib le exp ertt est i m on y, an d theref ore t h e m ovan t s had not c arri ed the i r burden of provi n g t h e exi st en ce of an avail a b le for u m . N obl e proceeded w i t h i t s defen se
a n d file d a th ir d -p a r tyco m p la in t a g a in s t S c h lu m b e r g e rb a s e do n its a lle g e dro le in O ’K e e fe ’s d e a t h

. T h e r e a ft e r , t h is c a s e w a s tr a n s fe r r e df r o m J u d g e K e n t ’s 1 d o c k e t t o J u d g e M e lin d a H a r m o n ’ s d o c k e t. The pa r t i e s e xp e r i e nc e d m any d i f f i c ul t i e s i n pr o c ur i ng andpr o vi di ng d i scov eryl oca ted i n B ra zil

. N ob l e h a s com m en ced pr oce ed i n gs in B ra zilto obtai n docum en t s and t h e i ssuan ce of com pu l sory p roces s on w i t n esses t o sec u re th eir de p ositi on testi m on y, bu t t h e B ra zil i a n trib u n a lh a s n ot y e t r u l ed as to
w he t he ri tw i l lgr antN o bl e ’ s re que s t
. N o bl e al s o re que s t e d d o c um e nt s f r o m t he O ’ K ee fes thro u gh w ri tten discov erypu rsu a n t t o th e F ed era lR u l es o f C iv il P r o c e d u r e . A fte rw a itin gfo ra lm o s t tw o y e a r s , N o b le file d a m o tio n to co m p e l. T h e m a gistrate jud ge reco m m en d ed tha t t h e d i stri ct cou rt gra n t t h e m oti on to
com pe la nd a l s o s ugg e s t e d t hati f di s c o ve r y w as no tf o r t hc o m i ng, t he di st ri ct
c o u r t s h o u ld re c o n s id e rth e m o t i o n to d is m is s fo rfo r u m n o n co n v e n ie n s . Sc hl um be r ge rt he n f

i l e d a m o t i o n t o di s m i s s f o rf o r um no n c o nve ni e ns a nd t o rec on si der t h e den i alof N obl e’ s m ot i on to d i sm i ss f or f orum non conven i en s. Ju dg e H arm on gran t ed the m ot i on t o di sm iss, an d i n doi n g so, Ju dg e H arm on recogni zed that Jud ge K en t h ad previ ou sl y den i ed N obl e’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss f or f or um n on conve ni ens an d thatS c hl um ber ger ’ s c urr entm ot i on w as ve r y s i m i l ar to N o b le ’ s p r e v io u s m o tio n . J u d g e H a r m o n co n c lu d e d ,

[ G ] iven t he e vent s i n t hi s l aw su i t si nce i tw as t r ansf er r ed t o t hi s c our tas w el las i nf or m at i on t hatw as ei t h er not presented to, not c on si dered b y, or ot h erw i se n otavail able t o the p redecessorcourt , i ti s t h e opi n i onN o. 08- 41305

Loum ar, Inc. v. Smi th , 6 9 8 F .2 d 7 5 9 , 7 6 3( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 3); Gallimore v. Missouri Pac. 2 R.R. Co. , 6 3 5F .2 d 1 1 6 5 , 1 1 7 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 1 ). Lou mar , 69 8 F .2d at 7 62. 3 Id

. 4 Abshire v. SeacoastP rods ., I nc. , 6 6 8F .2 d 8 3 2 , 8 3 7 -3 8( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 2). 5 4 o f th is co u r t t h a t t h e ca s e s h o u ldn o w b e d is m is s e din fa v o ro f am o r e a p p r o p r ia te fo r u m . T h e O ’ K eefes app ealf rom t h i s or der. II T h e O ’ K eefes f

i rstargu e t h at Jud ge H arm on err ed i n g ran t i n g t h e m ot i on t o di sm i ss f

or f orum non conven i en s i n l i gh t of Ju dg e K en t ’ s previ ou s den i alof N obl e’ s m ot i o n to d ism i ss f or f orum non conven i en s, an d that Jud ge H arm on
s ho ul d ha v e r e v i e we d J u d g e Ke n t ’ s p r e v i o u s d e n i a lf o ra n a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n. W e revi ew a di st ri ctcourt ’ s deci si on t o rec on si der a p rior j u dg e’ s i n t erl ocutory
r ul i ng f o ra bus e o f

di s c r e t i o n. U nde rt he l aw of t he c as e do c t r i ne , “ w he n a 2 di st ri ctj u dg e ha s r en dered a deci si on i n a case, an d t h e case i s l atert ran sferred t o an ot h er j u dg e, t h e success or s h ou l d n otordi n ari l y overrul e t h e earl i er de c i s i o n. ” H o w e ve r , t he l aw of t he c as e do c t r i ne “ i s a r ul e of conv e ni e nc e a nd 3 ut i l i ty a n d y i el ds t o a dequat e r eas on, f ort he pr ede c es so rj udge c oul d al w ays h a v e re c o n s id e r e d h is in itia l d e c is io n s o lo n g a s th e ca s e re m a in e din h is co u r t.” 4 Aj u dg e t o w h om a case h as been t ran sferred has the sam e pow er t o rec on si der pri or r u l i n gs as t h e predecessorj u dg e. 5 J u d ge H a rm on didn ot a b u se h er d i scre ti on in reco n sider i n g th e m oti on to d is m is s fo r fo ru m n o n co n v e n ien s. Ju d g e H a rm o n n o te dth a t S ch lu m b e rg e r’s
m ot i on w as ve r y s i m i l art o t he m ot i on pre vi ous l y subm i t t ed by N obl e, butt hat

“ given t he eve nt s i n t hi s l aw sui t si nce i t w as t r ansf er r ed t o t hi s c our tas w el las i n f orm ati on tha tw as eit h er n otp resented to, n otcon si dered b y, or ot h erw i se not
ava i l able t o t h e predecessorcourt , ” t h e m ot i o n to d ism i ss f or f orum nonN o. 08- 41305

Gonzalez v. Ch rysler Cor p. , 301 F.3d377, 379 (5thC ir. 2002) (c itin g Bau mgartv . 6 Fairch ild Airc raft Cor p. , 9 8 1 F .2 d 8 2 4 , 8 3 5( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 3))

. Inre Air Crash Disaster Near N ew Orleans, La. on July9, 1982, 82 1 F .2d 1 147 , 11 67 7 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc) (citing Piper AircraftC o. v. Reyno , 4 5 4U .S

. 2 3 5 , 257- 5 8( 1 9 8 1 )) , vacated on other gro unds su b nom. P an Am. Wo r ld A irways, I nc. v. Lopez , 49 0 U .S. 10 32 (1 9 8 9), opinio n reinstated exceptas todamages , 8 8 3F .2 d 1 7( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 9). Id

. at11 65. 8 Id

. 9 5 conven i en s s h ou l d n ow be gran te d . S i n ce t h e t i m e t h at Jud ge K en tden i ed N obl e’ s m ot i on t o di sm i ss f or f orum non conven i en s, N obl e f i l ed cl ai m s agai n st S chl u m berger as a t h i rd- pa rt y defenda n t , t h e parti es ha d b e e n unab l e t o procure andpr o vi de di s c o ve r y l o c at e d i n Bra z i l , and t he di s t r i c t c o ur tl e ar ne d t hatt he O ’ K ee fes h a d fi l ed a m oti on to tol lth e statu te o f l i m i tati on s i n a B ra zil i a n cou rt. Jud ge H ar m o n ha d t he s am e po w e r t o r e c o ns i de r t he m o t i o n t o di s m i s s f o rf o r um
n on con ve n i en s as Ju d ge K en t w ou l dh a ve h a d , a n dsh e w a s n ot req u i red to d e fe rto J u d g e K e n t’s p r e v io u s ru lin g . III T h e O ’ K ee fes n ex t arg u e th a t t h e d i stri ct co u r t erred i n i ts de ci sion to gran tt h e m ot i on t o di sm i ss f or m ot i on non conven i en s. W e revi ew a d istr i ct court’ s di sm i ssalon th e b asi s of f orum non conven i en s f or c l ear abu se of di scr et i on . In revi ew i n g f orum n on con ven i en s d eci si on s, ou r d u t y i s “t o revi ew 6 th e lo w e rco u r t’s d e c is io n m a k in gp r o c e s s a n dco n c lu s io n a n dd e te r m in e if it is
r eas onabl e; ourdut y i s nott o pe r f or m a de novo anal ys i s a n d m a k e the i ni t i al d e te r m in a tio n fo rth e d is tr ic t c o u r t.” 7 In deci di ng w he t he rt o di s m i s s ac as e f o rf o r um no n c o nve ni e ns , t he d is tr ic t c o u r t m u s t fir s t d e te r m in e w h e th e ra n a d e q u a te a l te r n a tiv e fo r u m is
ava i l able. If an al t erna t ive f orum i s both ad equ ate and avail able, t h e di st ri ct 8
c o ur tm us tt he n wei gh va r i o us pr iva t e and publi c i nt e r e s tfac t o r s t o de t e r m i ne
w h e th e rd is m is s a l is w a r r a n te d

. U ltim a te ly , th e “ i n q u i r yis w h e r e tr ia l w ill 9N o. 08- 41305

DT E X, LL C v . B B VA Banco me r, S.A

. , 5 0 8F .3 d 7 8 5 , 7 9 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7). 10 Inre Air Crash Disaster, 821 F.2dat1164 (citing Piper AircraftC o. , 454 U.S. at 2 55- 11 5 6). DT

EX , 508 F.3dat 794 (citing Inre Air Crash Disaster, 8 2 1 F .2 d at 1 1 6 4). 12 Inre Air Crash Disaster, 8 2 1 F .2 d at 1 1 6 5
. 13 Id

. (citing Piper AircraftC o. , 4 5 4U .S

. at 2 5 5 ; Synd icate 420 a tL lo yd ’sLondonv . 14 EarlyAm. I

ns. Co. , 7 9 6F .2 d 8 2 1 , 8 2 9( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 8 6))

. 6 b e s t s e r v e th e co n v e n i e n c e o f th e p a r tie s a n dth e in te r e s ts o f ju s tic e .” A 10 pl ai n t i f f ’ s c h oi ce of

f orum i s not concl u sive, an d “a f orei gn pl ai n t i f

f ’ s s el ect i on of
an A m eri can f

orum deserves l ess defer en ce t h an an A m eri can ci t i zen’ s s el ect i on of hi s h om e f

orum . ” T h e defenda n t h as t h e bu rden of proof on allel em en t s. 11 12 Th e O ’ K ee fes argue t hatthe di st r i c tcour ter r ed i n f i ndi ng B r azi lt o b e a n a v a ila b le a n d a d e q u a te a lte r n a tiv e fo r u m . A n a lte r n a tiv e fo r u m is a v a ila b le
w he n “ t he e nt i r e c a s e a nd a l l p a r t i e s c a n c o m e wi t hi n t he j ur i s d i c t i on o f t hat f or um . ” An al t er nat ive f or um “ i s adequat e w hen t h e p a rti es w i l lnotbe 13 de pr ive d o f al l r e m e di e s o r t r e at e d un fai r l y, e ve n t ho ugh t he y m ayno te nj o y t he
s a m e b e n e fits a s th e ym ig h t r e c e iv e in a n A m e r ic a n co u r t.” 14 T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e it s d is c r e tio n in d e te r m in in gth a t B r a z il i s an avai l abl e f

or um f ort hi s l i t i gat i on. The O ’ K ee fes c ont end t hatB r azi l i an courts w i l lnot acc ept t h i s c ase becau se O ’ K eefe di ed on a P an am an i an - f l agg ed
ves se l , w hi c h B r azil i an c o ur t s r e c ogni ze as f or ei gn t er r i t or y, and t hata Braz i l i an
cou rt w ou l d h old th a t su i t w ou l dbe pr op er in th e d om i ci l e of the de fen d a n t. H ow ever, t h e di st ri ctcourt f ou n d that because the m ostdi rect l y i n vol ved parti es
c o ul d d e f

i ni t e l y be b r o ugh tb e f o r e t he Br az i l i an c o ur t s , a nd t he pa r e nt
c o r p o r a t i o n s c o u l d l i k e l y b e b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e m, B r a z i li s a n a v a i l a b l e f o r u m. T h i s f i n di n g w as bol st ered by the facttha tN obl e an d S chl u m berger ha ve agreed to a la w s u it in B r a z il.N o. 08- 41305

DT EX , 508 F.3dat794(quoting Gulf Oil C orp. v. Gilbert , 3 3 0 U. S. 5 0 1 , 5 0 8( 1 9 4 7))

. 15 7 Th e di st r i c tc our tal so di d notabus e i t s di sc r et i on i n det er m i ni ng t hat B r a z il is a n a d e q u a t e fo r u m . W h ile th e O ’ K e e fe s a r g u e dth a t t h e ca s e w o u ld t ake f ourye ar s t o r es olve att he t r i alc our tl eve l , t he di st r i c tc our tfou n d t hat t hi s w as not an unacc ept abl e l eve lof del ay, par t i c ul ar l y i n l i ghtof t he fac tt hat t h i s c ase ha d alr ead y b e e n p e n di n g f or t w o- an d-a- h al f

years and w as st i l lnot
rea d y for tri a l

. T h e d i stri ct cou rt also f ou n dth a t th e ina b i l i ty of B ra zil i a n cou rts t o c o m pe le xt r at e r r i t o r i aldi s c o ve r y w as l i ke l y i nc o ns e que nt i alb e c aus e t he
a c c id e n t o c c u r r e d in B r a z il, th e co r p o r a te e n tit ie s w ith a c tu a l in v o lv e m e n t in th is ca s e a r e a ll B r a z il-b a s e d c o r p o r a tio n s , a n dth is litig a tio n h a dre p e a te d ly be e n de l ay e d be c aus e o f t he i nab i l i t y o f t he pa r t i e s t o pr o c ur e and pr o vi de di scovery l ocat ed i n B ra zi l

. A l so, m ostof t h e w i t n esses l ocat ed i n t h e U n i t ed S t a t e s a r e p a r t ywi t n e s s e s wh o s e c o mp u l s i o n wi l ln o tb e r e q u i r e d

. T h u s , we
c a n n o t s a yth a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t a b u s e dit s d is c r e tio n in fin d in gth a t B r a z il is
a n a v a i l a b l e a n d a d e q u a t e a l t e r n a t iv e f o r u m. The O ’ K e e fe s a l s o c o nt e nd t hat t he di s t r i c t c o ur t i m pr o pe r l y w e i ghe d t he pub l i c a nd p r ivat e inte r e s tfac t o r s i n i t s de c i s i o n t o di s m i s s t he c as e f o rf o r um
n on conven i en s. Th e rel evan tprivate i n t erest fact ors are: ( 1) “ t h e rel ative ease of acces s t o sources of proof ” ; (2) th e “a vail abil i t y of com pu l sory proc ess f or att en da n ce of

un w i l l i n g . . . w i t n esses ” ; ( 3) “ t h e cost of obtai n i n g att en da n ce of
w illin g [] w i tn ess es”; (4) th e “ p oss ib i l i ty of [a] view of [t h e] p rem i ses , ” if ap pr o pr i at e ; a nd ( 5) a ny o t he r pr ac t i c alfac t o r s t hatm ak e t r i al“ e xp e di t i o us a nd i n exp en sive. ” Th e di st ri ctcourtf ou n d t h at the private i n t erestfact ors w ei gh ed 15 i n fav o ro f

di s m i s s alo f

t he c as e . T he pa r t i e s ha d a l r e ad y e xp e r i e nc e d m any di f f i c ul t i es i n obt ai ni ng a cces s to sour c es of pr oo f l oc at ed i n B r azi lorhel d by Bra z i l i an do m i c i l i ar i e s . M o s t o f t he w i t ne s s e s t he O ’ K e e fe s l i s t e d who l ive i n t he U n ite d S ta te s a r e N o b le e m p lo y e e s , a n d N o b le h a s c o n s e n te dto ju r is d ic tio n inN o. 08- 41305

See Inre Air Crash Disaster, 82 1 F .2d at 1 164(holdin g that acourt i sr equired to 16 exa min e the pub lic intere stf actor s onlyif itc annotdetermin e wh eth erth e privateintere st factor s w ei ghinf

avorof di smi ssal)

. Id

. at11 62-6 3. 17 8 B r a z il. A ls o , m o s t u n w illin g , n o n -p a r tyw itn e s s e s a r e lik e lyto re s id e in B r a z il beyo nd t he rea c h of

the di st r i c tcour t
. W hi l e t he O ’ K ee fes have st i pul at ed t hat th eyw i l lp a y th e costs of cou n sel f or N ob l e a n dS ch l u m b erg er’ s cou n sel t o g o to B razi l to d epose rel evan tw i t n esses l ocat ed there, t h i s s t i pu l ati on does not
o ut w e i gh t he di f

f i c ul t i e s i n o bt ai ni ng ac c e s s t o s o ur c e s o f pr o o f o rt he
unav ai l ab i l i t y o f

c o m pul s o r y pr o c e s s f o runwi l l i ng w i t ne s s e s. T h ere f o r e , t he di st ri ct co u rt d i d n otabu se i t s di scr et i on i n f i n di n g t h at t h e private i n t erest fa c to r s w e ig h e d in fa v o ro f d is m is s a l. A l t h ou gh t h e d i st ri ctcou rtf ou n d that t h e private i n t erestfact ors w ei gh ed i n favor of di sm i ss al , i t al so w ei ghed t he publ i c i nt er es t fac t or s and f ound t hat t h ey w e i ghe d s t r o ngly i n fav o ro f di s m i s s al

. The r e l e va ntpub l i c i n t erest

16 fact ors are: t h e adm i n i st rat ive di f f i cul t i es f

l ow i n g f

rom court congesti on ; t h e l ocali n t ere sti n ha vi n g l ocal i zed c o nt r o ve r s i e s r e s o lve d ath om e ; t he i nt e r e s ti n ha vi ng t he t r i al

. . . i n a f

or um t hati s fam i l i ar w i t h t he l aw t h at m u stgovern the acti on ; t h e avoi da n ce of u n n e c e s s a r yp r o b le m s in co n flic ts o f la w , o rin ap pl i cat i on of

f orei gn law ; an d the u n fai rness of bu rden i n g ci t i zens i n an un rel ated f orum w i t h j u ry dut y. 17 Th e di st r i c tc our tf

ou n d th atbe c ause t hi s c as e w as go ver ned by B r azi l i an l aw regardi n g t h e death of an A u st ral i a n c iti z e n w h i l e w orki n g i n B razi lf or a B razi l i an com pa n y, t h i s case has n o m ean i n gf u lconn ect i on t o t h i s f orum ot h er t han t he he ad qua r t e r s o f t he pa r e ntc o m pa ni e s o f t w o i n vol ved pa r t i e s . The di st ri ctcourtdi d n otabu se i t s di scre tion i n f i n di n g t h at t h e pu bl i c i n t erestN o. 08- 41305

9 3 2F .2 d 1 5 4 0 , 1 5 5 1 ( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 1 ). 18 Id

. 19 9 fact ors w ei gh ed i n favor of d i sm i ssal

. T h eref

ore, the di st ri ctcou rtd i d n otabu se i t s di scr et i on i n gran t i n g t h e m ot i on t o di sm i ss f or f orum non conven i en s. I V F i n al l y, t h e O ’ K eefes argue that t h e di st ri ctcourtfai l ed to i m pose suf f i c i entc ondi t i ons on i t s di sm i ss al , as r equired by B a ris v. S u lp icio L i n es, Inc. I n B a ris , w e r e c o g n iz e d t h a t “c o u r ts m u s t ta k e m e a s u r e s , a s p a r t o f th e ir 18 di sm i ssal s i n f

orum non conven i en s c ases, t o ensu re t h at defend an t s w i l lnot att em pt t o ev ad e the j u ri sdi ct i on of t h e f orei gn court s. ” H ere, t h e di st ri ctcourt 19
sa ti sfi ed this req u i rem en t b y co n d i ti on i n g th e d i sm i ssa l“on allde fen d a n ts
su b m i tti n g to th e j u ri sd i cti on of th e B ra zil i a n cou rt. ” * * * T h e r e fo r e , w e h o ld th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t d idn o t a b u s e its d is c r e tio n in d i s mi s s i n gt h i s c a s e f o rf o r u m n o n c o n v e n i e n s , a n di t s j u d g me n ti s A F F I RMED.