1

08-3823-cv

In re Air Crash Near Peixoto De Azeveda, Brazil, on September 29, 2006

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO SUMMARY ORDERS FILED AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007,

IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1 AND FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1. IN A

BRIEF OR OTHER PAPER IN WHICH A LITIGANT CITES A SUMMARY ORDER, IN EACH PARAGRAPH IN WHICH A CITATION APPEARS, AT LEAST

ONE CITATION MUST EITHER BE TO THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE NOTATION: “(SUMMARY ORDER).” A PARTY

CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF THAT SUMMARY ORDER TOGETHER WITH THE PAPER IN WHICH THE SUMMARY ORDER IS

CITED ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS THE SUMMARY ORDER IS AVAILABLE IN AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE WHICH

IS PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FEE (SUCH AS THE DATABASE AVAILABLE AT HTTP://WWW.CA2.USCOURTS.GOV/).

IF NO COPY IS SERVED BY REASON OF THE AVAILABILITY OF THE ORDER ON SUCH A DATABASE, THE CITATION MUST INCLUDE REFERENCE

TO THAT DATABASE AND THE DOCKET NUMBER OF THE CASE IN WHICH THE ORDER WAS ENTERED.

At a stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals

for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan

United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of

New York, on the 2 day of December, two thousand and nine. nd

Present: JOSEPH M. McLAUGHLIN,

PIERRE N. LEVAL,

RICHARD C. WESLEY,

Circuit Judges.

________________________________________________

LLERAS, ET AL., 06 Civ. 6083; DE SOUZA LEMOS, 

07 Civ. 2031; ABREU, 07 Civ. 2585; SWENSSON DE 

MATTOS, 07 Civ. 2590; DA SILVA, 07 Civ. 2975; 

RODRIGUES, 07 Civ. 2976; RODRIGUES, 07 Civ. 2977; 

FALCAO, 07 Civ. 2978; BONAROSKI, 07 Civ. 2981; 

ACKER, 07 Civ. 2982; SILVA, 07 Civ. 2986; AZEVEDO, 

07 Civ. 2987; RODRIGUES, 07 Civ. 2989; RODRIGUES, 

07 Civ. 2990; RODRIGUES, 07 Civ. 2997; CALANDRINI, 

07 Civ. 2996; QUEIROZ, BARRETO, 07 Civ. 3005; 

07 Civ. 2999; LINS, 07 Civ. 3004; BATALHA, 

07 Civ. 3012; MICHEL, 07 Civ. 3016; GUIDI, 

07 Civ. 3017; CALANDRINI, 07 Civ. 3018; CUSTODIO, 

07 Civ. 3019; AMORIM, 07 Civ. 3023; BRESSAN, 

07 Civ. 3025; MURTA, 07 Civ. 3026; PANIZZI, 

07 Civ. 3027; FREIXO, ET AL., 07 Civ. 2979; TORRES, 
 The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all cases *

filed in United States district courts arising from the subject crash to the

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. See 28

U.S.C. § 1407; In re Air Crash Near Peixoto de Azeveda, Brazil on Sept. 29,

2006, 493 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (Jud. Pan. Mult. Litig. 2007). District court

docket numbers are included in the caption for purposes of clarity. The Clerk

of the Court is directed to amend the official caption as set forth above. 

2

07 Civ. 3039; SABELLI, 07 Civ. 3030; LAGES, 

07 Civ. 3031; ARRUDA, 07 Civ. 3032; ASSIS, 

07 Civ. 3035; COLOGNESE, 07 Civ. 3041; REIS, 

07 Civ. 3042; CARVALHO, 07 Civ. 3038; RICKLI, 

07 Civ. 3911; SILVA, 07 Civ. 4403; PEREIRA, 

07 Civ. 4404, SALVINI, 07 Civ. 4405; BARRETO, 

07 Civ. 4406; NUNES, 07 Civ. 4407; CELESTINO 

DE SOUZA, 08 Civ. 0064; DA SILVA, 08 Civ. 1217; 

SOUZA, ET AL., 08 Civ. 0477, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

HANCOCK, 07 Civ. 2587; NOE, 07 Civ. 2984; SILVA, 

07 Civ. 3013; LUCIA MARIA CARVALHO DE SAN GERALDI 

DE FARIAS, 07 Civ. 3339; BRAULE, 07 Civ. 3000; 

NETO, 07 Civ. 3002; MIRANDA, 07 Civ. 2586; RADESCA, 

07 Civ. 2974; PADILHA, 07 Civ. 3007; MARTINS BARATO, 

ET AL., 08 Civ. 2170; LIMA, 07 Civ. 3001; MACENA, 

07 Civ. 3033; LESQUEVES, 07 Civ. 3014; DORIA, 07 

Civ. 3022; GARCIA, 06 Civ. 5964; OLIVERIA, 07 Civ. 

2995; BARBOSA, 07 Civ. 2998; CARVALHO, 07 Civ. 3003; 

MACHADO, 07 Civ. 3015; ROSA, 07 Civ. 3010; NARANJO, 

07 Civ. 3024; SANTOS, 07 Civ. 3040; GONCALVES, 07 

Civ. 3029; LOPES, 07 Civ. 3340,

Plaintiffs,

- v. - (08-3823-cv)

EXCELAIRE SERVICES INC., ET AL.; RAYTHEON COMPANY; 

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; AMAZON TECHNOLOGIES 

COMPANY; EMBRAER AIRCRAFT CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC.; 

AVIATION COMMUNICATIONS AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS 

LLC; JAN PAUL PALADINO; LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION; 

JOSEPH LEPORE,

Defendants-Appellees.

*

__________________________________________________ 
3

Appearing for Appellants: STEPHEN F. ROSENTHAL, Podhurst

Orseck, P.A., Miami, Florida

(STEVEN CRAIG MARKS, RICARDO M.

MARTINEZ-CID, Podhurst Orseck,

P.A., Miami, Florida; ROBERT L.

PARKS, Law Office of Robert L.

Parks, P.L., Coral Gables,

Florida; STEVEN E. FINEMAN AND LEXI

J. HAZAMN, Lieff, Cabraser,

Heimann, & Bernstein LLP, New

York, New York; CURTIS B.

MINER, Colson Hicks Eidson, Coral

Gables, Florida; MICHAEL P. VERNA,

Bowles & Verna LLP, Walnut

Creek, California; JAMES P.

KREINDLER, Kreindler & Kreindler

LLP, New York, New York, on the

brief).

Appearing for Appellee

ExcelAire Service Inc.: ANN THORNTON FIELD, Cozen O’Connor,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Appearing for Appellee 

Honeywell International, 

Inc: ERIN M. BOSMAN, Morrison &

Foerster LLP, San Diego,

California (DON G. RUSHING,

Morrison & Foerster LLP, San

Diego, California and Charles L.

Kerr, Morrison & Foerster LLP,

New York, New York, on the

brief).

Appearing for Appellee

Raytheon Company: EDWIN JOHN U, Kirkland & Ellis

LLP, Washington, DC (BRANT W.

BISHOP, MICHAEL D. SHUMSKY, Kirkland

& Ellis LLP, Washington,

District of Columbia, on the

brief).
4

Appearing for Appellee 

Aviation Communication

& Surveillance Systems,

LLP: RALPH VINCENT PAGANO, Mendes &

Mount LLP, New York, New York.

Appearing for Appellee

Lockheed Martin

Corporation: CHRISTOPHER D. THOMAS, BENJAMIN R.

DWYER, Nixon Peabody LLP,

Rochester, New York.

Appearing for Appellee

Amazon Technologies 

Company: RANDAL R. CRAFT, JR., ALAN D.

REITZFELD, Holland & Knight LLP,

New York, New York.

Appearing for Appellee

Joseph Lepore: PAUL GALANTE, Morrison & Foerster

LLP, New York, New York.

Appearing for Appellee 

Jan Paladino: GEORGE P. MCKEEGAN, McKeegan &

Shearer P.C., New York, New

York.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of New York (Cogan, J.).

1 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED,

2 AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District

3 Court for the Eastern District of New York be AFFIRMED.

4 This multi-district litigation involves wrongful death

5 claims brought by surviving family members of passengers of

6 Gol Linhas Inteligentes S.A. Boeing 737-800 Flight 1907,
5

1 which crashed in the Amazon rainforest on September 29,

2 2006, killing all on board. Plaintiffs in this action are

3 Brazilian citizens and residents. The decedents they

4 represent were also Brazilian citizens and residents at the

5 time of their death. Plaintiffs appeal the grant of a

6 motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens,

7 entered on July 2, 2008. In re Air Crash Near Peixoto De

8 Azeveda, Brazil, on Sept. 29, 2006, 574 F. Supp. 2d 272, 275

9 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). We presume the parties’ familiarity with

10 the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case,

11 and the issues on appeal.

12 For substantially the reasons stated in the decision of

13 the district court, we affirm. It is by now well14 established that “[t]he forum non conveniens determination

15 is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” 

16 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). We

17 will reverse “only when there has been a clear abuse of

18 discretion.” Id. When, as in this case, the “court has

19 considered all relevant public and private interest factors,

20 and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its

21 decision deserves substantial deference.” Id.
6

1 The district court properly determined the degree of

2 deference owed to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum. In re Air

3 Crash Near Peixoto, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 282; see Iragorri v.

4 United Techs. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2001). The

5 district court was well within its discretion in concluding

6 that Brazil is an available and adequate alternative forum. 

7 In re Air Crash Near Peixoto, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 284-85; see

8 Piper, 454 U.S. at 255 n.22. Finally, the district court

9 thoroughly assessed the private and public interest factors

10 attending a forum non conveniens determination, and properly

11 found that “the important factors of lack of jurisdiction in

12 this forum over potentially liable parties and the lack of

13 compulsory process over witnesses and evidence in Brazil,

14 together with other considerations, swing the balance

15 sufficiently to make this forum genuinely inconvenient and a

16 Brazilian forum significantly preferable.” In re Air Crash

17 Near Peixoto, 574 F. Supp. 2d at 289 (internal quotation

18 marks omitted); see also Iragorri, 274 F.3d at 73-75.

19 The district court made its dismissal on forum non

20 conveniens grounds subject to several conditions enumerated

21 in its opinion. In re Air Crash Near Peixoto, 574 F. Supp.
7

1 2d at 290. In addition to those conditions, which remain

2 operative, Defendants have agreed that the Pilot Defendants,

3 Joseph Lepore and Jan Paul Paladino, will submit to

4 videotaped depositions in the United States, and that

5 Defendants will not object in Brazilian proceedings to the

6 admissibility of those depositions on the basis of either

7 (1) the fact that the depositions were conducted in the

8 United States, or (2) the format of the testimony.

9 The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s remaining arguments

10 and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, the

11 judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

12

13 For the Court

14 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

15

16 By: ______________________

17