NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0504n.06 Filed: August 19, 2008 No. 07-1821 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
MOE B ARAK, P laintif f-App ellant,

v. A. R OBER T ZEFF, Defendan t-Appellee.

_______________________________________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON AP P EAL FROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN
O P I N I O N

Be for e : B OG G S, C hie f Judg e ; M OORE and CL AY , C ir c uitJudg e s. KA RE N NELSON MOORE, Circuit Jud ge. Plaintiff-Appellant Moe B ara k (“B ara k”) app ea l s t h e dis missal of his suit in the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of Michig an on the g round of forum non conve niens , as well as t he dis trict court’ s denial of his motion for re co n s i d eration without first gra nting a hear ing a

nd without impl ementing his request for dis c ov e ry -r e la te d c on dit ion s o n th e dis mis sa l. We c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in di sm is sing the c a se a nd in d e nyingB a ra

k’ s mo tio n f

or re c on sid e ra

tio n w ith ou t a hear ing a nd without impos ing Ba

rak’ s reque sted conditions. We therefor e AF F IRM the judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt
.2 I. F ACTS AND P ROCEDURE A. F ac tu al B ac kgr ound Ba rak is a citizen of Michig an, and Def endant- Appellee A. Robert Z eff (“Z eff ”) is a c itiz en of Connecticut a

nd also maintains a re sidence in Florida. This action ar ises out of persona l and financ ial disputes be tween two f ormer br others-in-la

w wh o en te re d into a n ill- fate d bus ine ss part ne rs hip wi th the a im of

de ve lop inga

ja i a la i c omp le x in Torre jon, Spain. I n 1984, Ba

rak a nd Z eff incorporated Madrid Torre jon J ai Alai, S.A. (“ Madrid”) ; the a c tiv iti e s in vo lve d in fo rm ing the c or po ra tio n too k pla c e in Mic hig a n a nd in S pa in. Th a t sa

me y ear , Madrid purc hased la nd in Torre

jon, Spain. I n 198 6 , Ba ra k an d Z eff signe d an ag ree ment
a c kn ow le dg ingthat Z e ff wo uld a dv a nc e $4 25 ,0 00 fo r e xpe ns e s re la te d to the To rr e jon land , th a t th is outlay would entitle Z eff to the first $425,000 in proce eds from the development of t he land, and that profit in excess of that amount would be divided f ifty -fifty betwee n Ba

rak a nd Z eff

. Un fo rt un a te ly fo r the br oth e rs -i n- law, int e re st in the sp or t of ja i a la i w a ne d in

the la te 19 80 s, forc ing Ma drid to hire Spanish ac countants, attorne y s, and broke rs to evaluate the tax and regulatory implications of selling the Tor rejon prope rty . A 1992 ag ree ment provided for the distribution of ne t profits from the sa le of the la nd i n t he following manner : forty -nine pe rce nt to Ze ff, f orty -nine perc ent to Ba

rak, a nd two perc ent to a third shar eholder , arc hitect Antonio Alonso de la Riva Conde (“ Riv a ” ). Th e 19 92 a g re e me nt s ta te d th a t Ma dr id w ou ld “ re tur n to the sh a re ho lde rs a ll the c re dit s and adva nce pa y ments of any

kind that the y had advanc ed to the company , in acc ordanc e with the exis ting a g ree ment betwee n the par ties.” Joi nt Appendix (“J .A.”) at 18 (1992 Ag ree ment at 2). Af te r n a v i g a t i n g a

c o mp l e x p r o c e s s t o r e z o n e t h e T o r r e j o n p r o p e rt y , i n m i d

- 2 0 0 6 Ma dr id enter tained two off

ers f rom Spanish investment gro u p s . Ba rak f avore d the offe r fr om a company3

called L a Quinta. A majority of share holders (Z eff and Riva) at a noticed gen er al-shar eholder meeting in Spain, however , decide d to e nd neg otiations with L a Quinta be cause of conc erns a bout the company ’s sincer ity

and ability

to meet financ ial commitments in a timely manner . By the end of De cembe r 2006, Madr id closed the sale of the Tor rejon prope rty

to a s econd company

called Gr up o L ar, the re by

a lle g e dly a vo idi ngburd e ns ome ta x in c re a se s a nd re g ulator y lia bil iti e s. Ma dr id deposited Grupo L ar’ s first installment of 1.43 mi l lion euros in a “c orpora te, international bank

acc ount” locate d in L ondon, Eng land and discounted and then deposit ed in t he same acc ount the net total of three subsequent installments amounting to 9.41 million euros. J .A. at 1 2 0 (Ze ff De cl. at ¶ 13); J.A. at 351 (Silvi a Esca rtin Dec l. at ¶ 5). B. P r oc e dur al B ac kgr ound Be fore the close of

the Torr ejon prope rty ’s sale to G rupo L ar, on O ctober 4, 2006, Ba

rak f iled a complaint i n t h e Un i t ed S tates District Court for the Easter n District of Michig an, suing Z eff , a lon e , f or c omm on -l a w f

ra ud a nd mis re pr e se ntatio n a

nd fo r int e nti on a l inf

lic tio n of e mot ion a l ha

rm , and suing Z eff

and Madr id, toge ther, for deprivation of shareholder rig hts. On Dec ember 21, Ba rak filed an a mended c ompla i n t that named Z eff but not Madrid as the de fenda nt. The ame nded complaint alleg ed seve ral a cts of misconduct by Z eff , including: ( 1) Z eff

’s ef fort in Aug ust 2006 to persua de Bara

k to sign a document that would entitle Z eff to pay ment for various expenditures purportedly

made on behalf of Madr id, which B ara k believed inc luded many persona l expenses; (2) Z eff ’s wrong ly

holding himself out as the authorized repr esentative of Madrid and dec isionmaking contra ry to the “best i n t er es t s of all the shar eholder s,” J.A. at 25 (Am. Compl. at ¶ 11); (3) Z eff ’s instruction to a rea l estate a g ent not to provide B ara k with information about t he sale of the Tor rejon proper ty ; (4) the f

ailure of Z eff ’s re prese ntatives to return a file of persona l information that Ba rak4

had loane d them; (5) Ze ff ’s ac ce p tance of an of fer of sale pr oviding a

lesser a mount to the share holders than another offe r; (6) Z eff ’s dismiss al of Ernst & Young of S p ai n as M adrid’s

acc ounting f

irm and Zef

f’ s s ubstitut ion with his own personal ac counting firm, done with the purpose of

advanc ing Z eff

’s “e ffor ts to claim ill eg itimate e x penses as owing to him for either r eturn of ca pital contributions or return of allowable e x penses,” J .A. at 27 (A m. Compl. at ¶ 18); a nd (7) Z eff ’s conduc t of Madrid’s business “ without giving Ba rak adequate not ice of meeting s,” J.A. at 27 (Am. Compl. at ¶ 19). Z eff filed a moti on to dismi ss for forum non conve niens , or in t he a lte rn a tiv e , f

a ilure to j oin indispensable par

ties. After Ba

rak filed a br ief in opposition, and Z eff filed a r eply

brief, the district court dismissed the ca se on the ba s i s t h at Spain is a more c onvenient for um to resolve B ara

k’s claims. The district c ourt conclude d: “De spite Ba rak’ s char acte ri[z ation] of his dispute with Z eff as one be tween individuals, this lawsuit really conce rns a sha

reholder’s conduct with respec t to a corpor ation and the claim[s] of t he cor poration’s shar eholder s to certa in corporate profits.” Barak

v . Ze ff , N o . 0 6

- 1 4 4 2 4 , 2 0 0 7 WL 1 0 9 8 5 3 0 , a t * 3 ( E
. D
. M ic h

. A p r . 1 2 , 2 0 0 7 )

. T h e d is tr ict court deter mined that the majority

of re levant witne s s es re sided in Spain and that it would be ea sier for the witnesses to testify

in their n ati ve Spanish, eve n if they spoke Eng lish, and that it would be expensive to transport the witnesses to Michig an. Id. at *4. The district c ourt furthe r dete rmined th a t mo s t o f th e d o c u me n ts r e le v a n t to th e s u it w e r e lo c a te d in Spain. Id. I n w e ig hin g the pu bli c interests in the suit, the district court conc luded that “ther e ca n be no doubt t hat S pain has a g reater int e re st i n th e pa

rt ie s’ dis pu te a s it cent ers around a Spa nis h c or po ra tio n a nd the sa le of

Spa nis h proper ty to a Spanish investme n t gro up.” Id. L astly , the district court c oncluded that “ Ba rak5

sp e c if ic a lly c la ims that Z e ff

vio la te d Sp a nis h la

w a nd a jud g e in S pa in i s in

a be tte r pos iti on

tha n th is Court to evaluate that country ’s laws.” Id. Ba rak f iled a motion for rehe aring or re consideration, requesting that, notwithstanding the dismiss al , t h e d i strict court tempora rily stay the ca se to allow B ara

k to depose four

witnesses residing in the Unit ed S tates under the court’s subpoena power and to compel Ze ff to file answer s to the discovery

reque sts alrea dy

serve d upon him. The district court denie d Ba ra k ’s motion for

rec onsideration without co n d ucting a prior he aring . The district cour t concluded that Ba

rak ha d fa ile d to ide nti fy a “ pa lpa ble de fe c t” in i ts a

na ly sis that w ou ld w a rr a nt r e c on sid e ra tio n p ur su a nt t o Easter n District of Michig an L ocal Rule 7.1(g )(3)

. Ba ra k v . Ze ff , No. 06-14424, 2007 WL1599742,

a t *1 (E .D . M ic h. June 4, 20 07 ). B a ra k f ile d a tim e ly no tic e of a pp e a l. II. AN AL YSI S A . D is m is s a l o n t he Ba s is o f For um Non C onv e nie ns 1. Gove rning L aw “A dismissal on

fo r u m n o n c o n v e n iens groun ds is app rop ri ate whe n t he d efen dan t es tab lishe s, first, that the claim can be heard i n an ava ilable and a dequate alternative forum and, se cond, that the balanc e of pr ivate and public f actor s listed in Gu lf O il

[ Cor p. v . G ilb e rt ], 330 U. S . [501,] 508-09 [1947] , reve als that trial in the chosen f orum would be unne cessa rily burdensome f

or the de fenda

nt
o r t he cour

t.” Duha v. Agrium, I

nc. , 4 4 8 F
. 3 d 8 6 7 , 8 7 3 ( 6 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )

. T h e Su p reme Court has provided guidelines for the kinds of private interests a district cour t should consider: “the r elative

ea s e o f a cc es s t o s o u rc es o f pr o o f; av ai l ab i l i t y o f co mp u l s o ry p ro ce s s fo r a t t en d an ce o f u n wi l l i n g, and the c ost of obtaining attendanc e of willing, witnesses; possibili ty of view of

premises . . . ; and all other practica l problems t hat m ake trial of a case easy , expeditious , and inexpensive.” Gu lf O il ,6

33 0 U .S. a t 50 8. Pub lic int e re sts the dis tr ic t c ourt sh ou ld c on sid e r inc lud e : c on g e sti on of the c ourt s; the burden of

jury duty “upon the people of a community

which has no r elation to the litigation”; the “loca l interest in hav i n g localized controve rsies dec ided at home” ; and, in a diver sity case , the advanta g e of holding the trial “in a forum t h at is at home with the state law that must gove rn the

c a se , rathe r tha

n havin g a c ourt in so me oth e r fo rum un tang le pr ob le ms i n c on fl ic t of laws , a nd in law for eig n to itself.” Id. at 508-09. We revie w t he dis trict court’s dismi ssal of Bara k’s s uit on the basis of

forum non conve niens for “ a cle ar a

buse of discr etion.” Stewart v. Dow Chem. Co. , 865 F. 2 d 1 0 3 , 105 (6th Cir. 1989). “The forum non conve niens deter mination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial c ourt. . . . [W]he re the c ourt

ha s c on sid e re d a ll r e le va nt p ub lic a nd

priv ate int e re st f

a c tor s, a nd

wh e re its balanc ing of these fac tors is r easona ble, its decision deser

ves substantial defe renc e.” Pi pe r A irc ra

ft Co. v. Rey no , 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). 2. Ade quat e Al te r nat ive F or um The Supreme Court “pre supposes” that “the defenda nt is amenable to proce ss” in order for an alter native for um to be adequa

te. Gu lf O il , 330 U.S. at 507. The district cour t dismi ssed B ara

k’s suit on the condition that Ze ff submi t to the jurisdiction of the Spanish courts, waive a ny statute of limit ations defe nse, and stipulate that United States courts may enfor ce any final judgme nt in favor of B ara k. Barak , 2007 WL 1098530, at *5. Fur thermore , the re cord c ontains the dec laration of I nigo Q uintana, a Spanish attorney who attests that “Spanish cour ts recog nize causes of action for brea ch of c ontrac t and tort, which would include actions base d on fr au d , d ec ei t, and

m i s p r e s e n t a t i o n ” ; t h a tS p a n i s h c o u rt s h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r M a dr i d an d R i v a ; an d

t h a tS p a n i sh courts would exerc ise jurisdiction over B ara k’s claims ag ainst Z eff

wher e Z ef

f co n s ented to the7

jurisdiction of the Spanish courts. J .A. at 179-80 (Quintana Decl. at ¶¶ 3-6). There is no question, then, that the Spanish courts c ould exert jurisdiction over Z eff

. B ara k n e ve rt he le ss a rgue s th a t Sp a in m a y

no t be a va ila

ble a s a n a lte rn a tiv e fo rum be c a

us e he is eig hty -six y ear s old and in prec arious hea lth and, in the case that he died, Spain’s pr ocedur es for the he irs of an e state to pursue ong oing litig ation are more burde nsome than those in Michiga n. Specifica lly , Ba

rak a rg ues that the he irs to his estate would be require d to appea r in Spanish court within f iv e d a y s o f h is d e a th o r te n d a y s o f a n o ti c e f r o m th e c o u rt. D is mi s s a l o n th e g r o und of forum non conve niens is i na pp ro priat e wh e n “ the re me dy pr ov ide d b y

the a lte rn a tiv e fo rum is so clea rly inadequate or unsatisfa ctory that it is no remedy

at all.” Pi

pe r A irc ra

ft , 454 U.S. at 254. Spa in’ s p ro c e dura l r e qu ir e me nt f or th e hei rs of a

n e state to c on tin

ue lit ig a tio n is no t ov e rl y burdensome and would not de prive Ba rak’ s estate of a satisfac tory reme dy . There fore , we c onclude that Sp a in o ff

e rs a n a de qu a te a lte rn a tiv e fo rum. 3. Weighing of

the Gul f O il F actor s a. P rivate Intere sts B ara k’ s p ri mary

c on te nti on

on a pp e a l is that the dis tr ic t c ourt g a ve ina de qu a te we ig ht t o h is private inter est in liti g ating in his home forum: the United States District Court fo r t h e Ea stern District of Michig an. In 1 9 47, the Supreme Court he ld that a district court should not deprive a plaintiff of the a dvantag es o f h i s “home jurisdiction except upon a c lear showing of fa cts which

e ith e r (1 ) e sta

bli shsu c h o pp re ssi ve ne ss a nd ve xati on to a de fe nd a nt a s to be ou t of

a ll p ro po rt ion

to plaintiff’s conve nience . . . or (2) make tria l in the chosen for um inappropriate beca

use of

co n s i d er at i o n s af

fe ct i n g t h e c o u rt ’s o wn ad m i n i s t ra t i v e a n d l ega l p ro b l em s .” Ko s te r

v . Lu m b e r

men’ s Mut. Cas. Co. , 330 U.S. 518, 524 (1947). “O ppressivene ss and vexation,” how ever , are no longe r8

absolute pre requisites for

dismiss al on the g round of forum non conve niens
. Koster , 330 U.S. at 524. I n Ste war t , w e e xpla ine d th a t th e Sup re me Cou rt ’s Pi pe r A ircr aft

decision had e mphasized the centr ality of conve nience to the forum non conve niens inquiry as we ll as the discre tion of the district court. The Ste war t panel conclude d that “ther e is no requir ement in Piper
. . . that the burde n [on the def endant] b e ‘oppressive’ [for dismissal on the gr ound of forum non conve niens to be

war rante d] . . . . S uch a hig h standard w ould cons t i t u t e a misre ading of Piper and its prog eny .” Ste war t , 865 F.2d at 106. Most rece ntly , howeve r, we have turned away from st ressing the lang uag e in Pi pe r A irc ra

ft reg ardingdiscretion t o em p h as i z e once ag ain the holding of Koster . I n Duha , w e state d: “ In general , the standar d of def ere nce f or a U.S. pla intiff’s choice of a home forum per mits di smissal only when the de fenda

nt ‘establish[es] such oppressiveness and vexation to a def endant a s to be out of all propor

tion to plaintiff’s convenie nce, which may be shown to be slight or nonexistent.’” 448 F.3d at 873-74 (empha sis added). The Duha o p i n i o n ac kn o wl ed gedt h at , fo l l o wi n g Piper , we ha d h el d “t h at i n a c as e i n v o l v i n g a U. S

. ci t i z en . . . t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt [ d o es ] n o tn ee d t o m ak e a ‘f

i n d i n g’ that trial in the U.S. forum would be ‘ o p p re ssive’ or ‘ vexatious’ to the defenda nts.” Id. at 875 (q u o t i n g K

r y v i c k y v . S c a n di n a v i a n A i r l i n e s S

ys. , 807 F.2d 514, 517 ( 6th Cir. 1986)). The Duha majority rec onciled its position wit h t he pre cede nt: “Our a naly sis in that case [ Kryvick y ] was consistent, howeve r, with a substantially highe r deg ree of defe renc e for the choice of home-f orum plaintiffs.” Id. I n sum, when re viewing the district court’s dismissal for a buse of discr etion, we

mus t c on sid e r t

he high d e g re e of

de fe re nc e a ffo rded Barak ’s c ho ic e of his ho me fo rum. Y e t, t o aff irm the district court’s dismissal of B ara k’s suit on the basis of

forum non conve niens , we do not require proof that B ara

k intended to oppre ss or vex Ze ff by suing in the Easter

n District of Michig an.The district cour t concluded that although B ara k h ad name d four potential United States 1 wi t n es s es , h e did not descr ibe eve n g ener ally what purpose s their testimony would serve

. Barak , 2007 WL 1098530, at *4 n.1. 9 B ara k a rgue s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a de qu a te ly we ig h p ri vate int e re sts re g a rd inghis

a dv anc e d a g e a nd po or he a lth a s w e ll a s h is l a c k o f f lue nc y in S pa nis h. Th e se a re po we rf

ul i nte re sts , and we are sy

mpathetic to B ara

k’s difficult position. W ere we r eviewingth i s case de novo, we might have reve rsed the district c ourt’s dec ision on the forum non conve niens issue. The standa rd of re view applicable in the instant case, how ever , require s us to affor d g reater de fer ence to the dis tr ic t c ourt ’s dis c re tio n. We c on c lud e that th e di st ric t c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in de te rm ini ngthat th e ba lanc e of pr ivate int e re sts we ig he d in fa vo r o f d ism iss a l. Z e ff ’s a rgume nts fo r d ism iss a l, w ithwh i c h t h e d i s t r ic t c ourt a g re e d, tr a c k th e pr ivate int e re sts outlined by

the Supreme Court in Gu lf O il . First, Z eff has provided e vidence that the bulk of the documents and r ecor ds constituting nec essar y proof in the li t i gat i o n are located in Spain, whe re Madrid incor

porate d and conducte d business. The district c ourt’s inability to c ompel fore ign thirdparties to produc e these documents also cuts in f avor of dismiss al. Murray v . British Broad. Corp. , 81 F.3d 287, 295 ( 2d Cir. 1996) (af firming dismiss al on the basis of forum non conve niens when the distric t co u rt “m ight not be a ble to compel third par

ties located in [a fore ign c ountry ] t o produce documents”) . Second, the inability of United States cour

ts to compel fore ign w itnesses, who for m the majority

of potential witnesses in the suit, would seriously hamper the ability of the fa ctfinder 1 to determine the fac ts in thi s case . Even we re the Spanish witnesses willing to testify in the United Sta te s, the dis tr ic t c ourt

a c te d w ith in i ts d isc re tio n in c on sid e ri ngthe e xpe ns e of br ing ingnu me ro us , w i l l ing fore ign w itnesses to Michiga n. Barak , 2 0 0 7 WL 1 0 9 8 5 3 0 , a t * 4

. T h e E ig h th Ci r c u it has held upheld dismissal on the basis of forum non conve niens wh en co n siderations re g arding10

c omp uls or

y pr oc e ss a nd imp le a din g c ut i n f

a vo r o f t he fo re ig n ju

ri sd ic tio n, e ve n w he n th e ma jor ity of the proof w as in the United States. De Me lo v . Le de rleLab s. , 801 F.2d 1058, 1062- 63 (8th Cir. 1 9 8 6 ). The ba sis for af firming dismiss al is even strong er in the instant ca se, whe n conce rns reg ardingcompulsory

pro ce s s , t ra v el costs, and a cce ss to proof all cut in favor of the a lternative fo rum. Al tho ug h B a ra

k h a s su bm it ted the le tte r o f a ph y sic ian s ta tin g that he sh ou ld n ot t ra ve l to Spa in o n a c c ount o f h is h e a lth , h e ha s n ot p re se nte d a ny argume nt e xpla ini ng

why his int e re sts
c ann ot be repre se nte d b y a n atto rn e y

in S pa in. Whil e B a ra

k a rgue s th a t he wo uld

no t be a ble to
un de rs tand

a trial in Sp a in b e c a

us e he do e s n ot s pe a k Sp a nis h, Z e ff re sp on ds that th e re e xists a counter vailing inter est in the trier- of-f act be ing a

ble to understand the documentar y evidence and witness testimony

. Even if the interest re g ardingthe fa ctfinder s’ lang uag e compe tencies doe s not outweig h Ba

rak’ s in te rest in compre hending his trial, it is one re cog nized factor suppor ting dismissal on the basis of

forum non conve niens
. Panama Proce sses, S.A. v. Cities Serv. Co. , 6 5 0 F
. 2 d 4 0 8, 412, 415 (2d C ir. 1981) (upholding t he dismissal of a suit on the basis of forum non conve niens when the district court c onsidered a mong othe r fa ctors “the fac t . . . that a New York jury

would be confr onted with 14 y ear s of cor porate ‘sonnets fr om the Portugue se’ r equiring translation”)

. L astly , Ba rak c ontends that Z eff

’s private interests in holding the trial in Spain are mitig ated by the fa ct that both parties in this case reside in the U nited States. We are c oncer ned about Z eff

’s motivations i n seekingto force a trial in Spain when he himself is a ci t i z en o f C onnecticut a nd maintains a law office in D etroit, Michig an. Neve rtheless, that Z eff resides in the U nited States does

no t di min ish

the sig nif ic a nc e of the loc a tio n o f t

he pr oo f a nd the ma jor ity of the wi tne sse s in

Spa in and the g reater expense to Z eff if a trial wer e held in Mic higa n. Se e Po llu

x Ho ldi ng , Ltd. v . Ch as e11

Manhattan Bank , 329 F.3d 64, 74 ( 2d Cir. 2003) (holding that “a pla intiff’s choice of forum [does not] d es er v e[ ] p re s ump t i v e d ef er en ce s i mp l y

b ec au s e t h e c h o s en fo ru m i s d ef endant’ s home forum” ), cert. de nied , 540 U. S. 1 14 9 ( 20 04 ); Fa be r- Plas t G mb H v . Kl e ine rt , 997 F. Supp. 846, 848 (E.D. Mic h. 19 98 ) ( statin g that “ the fa c t th a t de fe nd a nt is a Mic hig a n re sid e nt w ho c on du c ts b us ine ss i n thi s st a te do e s n ot n e c e ssa ri ly me a n th a t th is i s th e pr op e r f or um for this action ”). The instant ca se i s most analog ous to binding pre cede nt that affir med, rather than pr ece dent that reve rsed, dismissal on the g round of forum non conve niens
. I n Kryvick y , the plaintiff broug ht

a wr ong ful death action ag ainst a S ca ndinavian air line manufa cture r re lated to the cr ash of a n airplane near

its scheduled destination of Ma drid, Spain. 807 F.2d at 515. I n addition to the f act that the site of the a ccide nt was in Spain and that the plaintiff a nd dece dent lived i n Spain at t he time of the cr ash, the d istrict court dete rmined that seve ral intere sts sim ilar to those at issue in the instant

case cut in favor

of dismissal. These interests included: the l ocation of evidentiar y rec ords in Spain, the fa ct that most of the witnesses resided in Spain, and the fa ct that United States cour ts could not implead Spanish aviation authorities. Id. at 516. Gra nted, t he plaintiff in Kryvick y lived abroa d and had fewer ties to the Unit ed S tates forum than B ara k does. See D uha , 448 F.3d at 875 (commenting that “the a ctual ties to the home fo ru m we re m u ch weaker in Kryvick ythan in the pre sent ca se”)

. Reg ardle ss, the balanc ing of interests by the district court in Kryvick y , w hic h w e a ff

ir me d, c los e ly

rese mbles that which the district cour t perfor med in the instant case

. B y c on tr a st, the ins tant c a se is d ist inguis ha ble fr om Duha , th e le a d in g c a s e in w h ic h we
reve rsed a

dismiss al on the basis of fo r u m n on conve niens . I n Duha , the United States citizen plaintiff filed a suit ag ainst his former employ er, an Arg entinian company , alleg ing c auses of action related to his former e mploy ment in Arg enti n a an d t o h i s t ermination. 448 F.3d at 868. Of g reat12

significan ce , t h is court re verse d the district court’s dismissal on the g round that “the U.S. forum of fe r[e d] g re a te r e a se of

a c c e ss t o th e re le va

nt d oc ume nts tha

n th e Ar g e nti ne fo rum be c a us e to d a te most documents have be en produc ed fr om the U.S. or Canada and ar e wr itten i n E n gl i s h .” Id. at 87 5- 76

. F ur

the rm or e , wi tne sse s in the Un ite d Sta te s o utn umb e re d th os e in A rg e nti na , ma kin g it l e ss expensive for the de fenda nt company

to transport i ts witnesses t o the Unit ed S tates t han it would be for the pla intiff to transport witnesses to South Amer ica. Id. at 877-78. In contra st to Duha , in the ins tant c a se the ma

jor ity of the pr oo f a

nd wi tne sse s a

re loc a te d in

the fo re ig n a

nd no t th e ho me forum. We there fore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discre tion in determining that the ba lanc e of

pr ivate int e re sts we ig he d in fa vo r o f a Spa nis h f or um. b. Public Intere sts The public intere sts at issue in the instant case include whether S p ain or the United States ha s a g re a te r i nte re st i n th e li ti gati on a nd wh e the r t

he Ea ste rn

Di str ic t of

Mic hig a n w ou ld n e e d to apply Spanish law. Ba

rak a rg ues that the d i s t rict cour t errone ously

conclude d that Spain had a g reater intere st in the lit igation beca use Madrid’s sole asset—the profit from the sale—is held in an international c orporate ac count at a ba nk located in L ondon, Eng land. That Madrid’s assets are no long e r in Sp a in , h o w e v e r , d o e s n o t w h o ll y o v e r w h e lm Sp a in ’ s in te r e s t i n o v e r s e e in g li ti g a ti on reg ardingthe manag ement of a c ompany incorporated in that country

. See , e.g. , Pa na ma Pr oc esse s, S

. A. , 6 5 0 F
. 2 d a t 4 0 9 , 4 1 3

- 1 4

. F u rth e r mo r e , B a r a k h a s n o t p r e s e n te d a n y a r g u me n t a s to why the U n it e d St a te s g e n e r a ll y o r th e c it iz e n s o f M ic h ig a n s p e c if ic a ll y w o u ld h a v e a n in te r e s t in the litigation, bey ond the fa ct of Ba rak’ s United States citizenship. Trying the case in Michiga n might unfairly burden a Michig an jury

with no relation to the litigation.Z eff argues in the alter

native that the district court should have dismiss ed the c ase pur suant 2 to Fede ral Rul e of Civil Procedur e 19(b) beca use of failure to join an indispensable par ty . We do no t nee d to re a c h this iss ue , h ow e ve r, be c a us e we c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a bu se its 13 B ara k a rgue s fu

rt he r that the dis tr ic t c ourt pr e ma tur e ly de c ide d that Spa nis h l aw wo uld pr e do min a te in t

he c a se be caus e “[s]ome of the law a

pp lie d w ill be Mic hig a

n la w ( a s r e la te s to actions alleg ed to have been c ommitt ed by Z eff in the Uni t ed States)[;] some of the law will be Spanish law.” Plaintiff-Appe llant Br. at 20. Such a vague argument is not persuasive g iven that the district court explained with some specific ity why it would need to apply Spanish law. The district court noted that Ba

rak’ s amended co m p l ai n t alleg ed that Z eff had soug ht to conduct a “ wrong ful distribution under Spanish law” Barak , 2 00 7 WL 10 98 53 0, a t *4 n. 2 ( qu oti ng J.A. a t 28 (A m. Compl. at ¶ 23)). The district court also stated that it would “ne ed to inter pret Spanish cor

porate law reg ardingnotice and disc losure require ments in or der to r esolve Ba rak’ s claim . . . that he wa s not g iven ade quate notic e o f shareholder me eting s.” Id. I n a dd iti on , th e dis tr ic t c ourt state d th a t it

wo uld “ ne e d to int e rp re t Sp a nis h tax lawto d e ter mi ne w he the r t he Gr up o L a r o ff

e r w a s in [Madrid’s] best interest or whether it wa s contra ry to the corpor ation’s intere st.” Id. Even we re the district court also to consider Michiga n law in the course of the l itigation, the district cour t did not abuse its discre tion when it determined that the need to a pply fore ign la

w weig hed in favor the alternative forum. See D owling v. Richardson-Merre ll, Inc. , 7 2 7 F
. 2 d 6 0 8 , 6 1 5 ( 6 th Ci r. 1984) (holding that a decision to dismiss on the basis of forum non conve niens “ wa s n ot e ve n c los e wi th respe ct to public inte re s t fa ct o rs ” whe n the ca se would involve the a pplication of for eig n tort law

un fa mil iar t o th e dis tr ic t c ourt ). We t he re fo re c on c lud e that th e dis tr ic t c ourt did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n w he n it

de te rm ine d th a t pu

bli c a s we ll a s pr ivate int e re sts mil itate d in fa vo r o f a Spa nis h fo rum. 2discretion by dismiss ing the case on the basis of forum non conve niens
. 14 B. D e nia l of R e c ons ide r at ion Wit houta He ar ing We reviewfor a

buse of discr etion the d i s t ri ct cour t’s denial of B ara

k’s motion for

re co n s i d er ation. Un ite d S tat es v . B ro wn , 449 F.3d 741, 750- 51 (6th Cir. 2006). I g noring the appropr iate standa

rd of revie w, Ba

rak a rg ues that the district cour t erre d by not holding a he aringon the issue of B ara

k’s hea lth. Bar ak’s motion for r eheari n g o r reconsideration, however , did not addre ss the need f

or a hear i n g on Ba

rak’ s health issues prior to a r uling on the motion. I nstead, Ba rak r equeste d only

that the district court stay dismiss al of the ca s e fo r t he limited purpose of allowing Ba

rak to de pose four

witness es re s i d i n g i n the United States and that the district court compel Z eff

to answer

the discover

y reque sts alr ea d y s u bmitted to him . I n his brief be fore the d i strict court opposing Z eff ’s motion for dismiss al, Ba rak argued that his he alth constituted a power ful private inter est counseling ag ainst dismis sal. B a r a k , h o w e ver, ma

kes his specific argument about the nee d fo r a he aringrelated to his health issues for the f irst time on appeal a

nd, there fore , we consider the a

rg ument waived. McClain v. Northw est Cmty. Corr. Ct r. Judicial Corr. Bd. , 440 F.3d 320, 330 n.2 ( 6th Cir. 2006). C. Denial of Con dition s Attac hed to Dism issal Ba rak a rg ues that the district cour t abused its discretion by denying his motion for

rec onsideration without g ranting his requeste d condition that the district court allow li m i t ed discovery in the United States. Ba

rak’ s contention is that Spanish courts could a llow into evidence depositions by

Ba rak of witnesses living in the U nited States. Z eff responds that B ara

k’s ar g ument constituted a novel g round for relief raised for the first time in Ba rak’ s motion for rec onsideration and that, ther efor e, this c ourt should treat the a rgument as wa ived. Z eff

is corre ct as a

g ener al matter15

that arguments raised f

or the fir st tim e in a motion for r econside ration ar e wa ived. Am

. Me at I ns t. v. Pridgeon , 724 F.2d 45, 46 ( 6th Cir. 1984). Ba rak, how ever , could not know in advanc e that the district court would g rant Z eff ’s motio n fo r d i smissal and thus did not know to request that the dismiss al be limited by two conditions. W e do not nee d to rea ch the issue of whether Ba rak w aived his argume nt r e g a rd ingthe c on dit ion s o n d ism iss a l. As s u m i n g arguendo that Ba rak did not wa ive hi s argument that the district court should have place d conditions on the dismis sal of the suit, we aff irm the district court’s de nial of the re quested conditions. The district court ma d e a p o we rf ul policy argument that allowing Ba rak to c onduct limit ed discove ry

und er the supervision of the Ea stern District of Michig an would esta blish a perve rse ince ntive. The prec edent would “enc ourag e other plaintiffs to file their lawsuits in, what the y kn owto b e , in c on ve nie nt f or ums wi th t

he ho pe tha

t th e c ourt

wi ll a llo w the m to e ng a g e in d is c o v e r y in th e f o r u m e v e n th o u g h th e c a s e mu s t b e tr a n s f e r r e d e ls e wher e.” Barak , 2 0 0 7 WL 1599742, at *2. We there fore conclude the di strict court did not abuse its discre tion when the cour t de nie d B ara

k’ s r e qu e ste d c on dit ion s o f d ism iss a l. III . C ON CL USI ON B e c a us e the dis tr ic t court did

no t a bu se its dis c re tio n in

c on c lud ingtha

t th e Spa nis h c ourt s
co n s t i tu t e an av ai l ab l e al t ern at i v e fo ru m an d t h at t h e ba l an ce o f bo t h p ri v at e an d p u b l i c fa ct o rs we i gh in favor of

try ing Ba rak’ s suit in S pain, we AF F IRM the district court’s dismissal on the basis of forum non conve niens . Be cau s e Ba rak waived his ar g ument that the district court should have g rante d a hea

ring reg ardinghis health issues, we AF F IRM the district c ourt’s denial of Ba ra k ’s motion for rec onsideration. F inally , beca use the district court did not a buse its discretion in denying16

Ba rak’ s reque sted conditions on dismi ssal, we A F F IRM th e dis tr ic t c ourt ’s re fu sa l to g ra nt t he se conditions. I n sum, we AF F IRM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.