[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-13023

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-04775-SDG

KABEYA BINTU, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

DELTA AIR LINES, INC., 

KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V., 

a.k.a. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,

 Defendants - Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(July 19, 2021)

Before WILSON, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

USCA11 Case: 20-13023 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 1 of 5
2

Kabeya Bintu, a German resident proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of 

his personal injury action under the Convention for the Unification of Certain 

Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention) on forum non 

conveniens grounds.

On October 23, 2019, Bintu filed an action in the Northern District of 

Georgia against Delta Airlines, Inc. (Delta) and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines 

(KLM), alleging a personal injury claim under the Montreal Convention. The 

district court dismissed the action because it determined that Germany provided an 

adequate alternative forum to bring the case, that private and public factors 

weighed in favor of dismissing the case, and that Bintu could reinstate the suit in 

Germany without undue inconvenience or prejudice to him.

We review forum non conveniens dismissals for abuse of discretion. Leon v. 

Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001). We afford the district court 

substantial deference in its forum non conveniens decisions. Id. The party moving

for dismissal must demonstrate that an adequate alternative forum is available, 

public and private factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and the plaintiff can 

reinstate his suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or 

prejudice. Id. at 1311. There is a strong presumption that the plaintiff’s choice of 

forum is sufficiently convenient, however a weaker assumption applies in cases 

brought by a foreign plaintiff. Id.

USCA11 Case: 20-13023 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 2 of 5
3

The district court did not err in dismissing Bintu’s case. It did not abuse its 

discretion in finding that Germany was an adequate alternative forum. Both 

Germany and the United States are signatories of the Montreal Convention, which 

allows a plaintiff to bring a personal injury action (1) in the domicile or principal

place of business of one of the defendants, (2) where one of the parties has a place 

of business through which the contract was made, (3) in the territory where the 

accident happened, or (4) in the plaintiff’s permanent residence if the carrier 

operates services to or from that location. Bintu resides in Germany and Delta and 

KLM operate out of Germany. Because of this, Germany can have jurisdiction 

over Bintu’s case. Additionally, both KLM and Delta expressly stated that they 

will submit to German jurisdiction and are amenable to process in Germany. Other 

courts have found Germany to be an adequate alternative forum as well, in spite of 

the differences between common law and civil law jurisdictions. E.g., Chirag v. 

MT Marida Marguerite Schiffahrts, 983 F. Supp. 2d 188, 197 (D. Conn. 2013);

Fagan v. Deutsche Bundesbank, 438 F. Supp. 2d 376, 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

The district court similarly did not abuse its discretion in determining that 

both private and public factors weighed in favor of dismissal. As the plaintiff 

bringing the case, Bintu’s choice of forum should be given weight, but that weight 

is lessened because he is a foreign plaintiff. Leon, 251 F.3d at 1314–15. Thus, the 

district court was correct in considering where the relevant witnesses and 

USCA11 Case: 20-13023 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 3 of 5
4

documentary evidence are primarily located. In fact, it is not disputed that known 

witnesses, including KLM’s flight crew, would have to engage in international 

travel were this suit to proceed in Georgia. And many of these relevant witnesses 

and documents are likely outside the Northern District of Georgia’s subpoena 

power as they involve foreign citizens living abroad. The associated costs of these 

factors to the private parties, in addition to the time needed to be able to find, 

translate, and transmit much of the testimony and evidence, weigh in favor of 

granting dismissal. Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., 578 F.3d 1283,

1292–93 (11th Cir. 2009). 

For the public interest factors, Germany certainly has an interest in a case 

where one of its residents is injured. Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings 

(Luxembourg) S.A., 119 F.3d 935, 953 (11th Cir. 1997). Other public interest 

factors also weigh in favor of dismissing this suit so that it may be brought in 

Germany. As previously mentioned, were the suit to remain in the United States, 

testimony would likely need to be translated in some fashion for a jury. SME 

Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097, 1101

(11th Cir. 2004). And Delta’s International Conditions of Carriage interaction with 

the Montreal Convention will likely result in German law being applied to the 

case. BCCI Holdings, 119 F.3d at 953. All these factors and costs would put a 

USCA11 Case: 20-13023 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 4 of 5
5

larger administrative burden on the court here where it has a relatively modest 

interest in the outcome of the suit. SME Racks, 382 F.3d at 1101.

Finally, there is no indication that Bintu cannot reinstate his suit without 

undue prejudice or inconvenience. Leon, 251 F.3d at 1310. Bintu’s brief asserts 

his claim is barred in Germany, but nothing in the record supports that assertion. 

Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted Delta 

and KLM’s forum non conveniens motion to dismiss and we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-13023 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 5 of 5