In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________

No. 07-3810

CHARIS CLERIDES and SOTEROULLA

HADJIKYRIYAKOU, Estate of NICOS

KARAKOSTAS,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

BOEING COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 07 C 4378—George W. Lindberg, Judge.

____________

ARGUED MAY 15, 2008—DECIDED JULY 16, 2008

____________

Before RIPPLE, KANNE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Following a tragic airplane

crash, Charis Clerides and Soteroulla Hadjikyriyakou,

personal representatives of the estate of Nicos Karakostas,

brought an action against Boeing in the United States
2 No. 07-3810

1 The district court had diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1332(a). The plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ decedent are domiciliaries

and citizens of Cyprus. The defendant is a Delaware company with its principle place of business in Illinois. The

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

2 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.1 Boeing

previously had moved to dismiss other actions arising

out of this occurrence on the ground of forum non

conveniens, contending that either Cyprus or Greece

would provide a more convenient forum. The district

court had granted the motion. The personal representatives

of Nicos Karakostas stipulated to a forum non conveniens

dismissal but reserved the right to appeal the district

court’s decision.2

 Because we believe that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion,

we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I

BACKGROUND

The underlying facts are not disputed. On August 14,

2005, a 737-300 aircraft, designed and built by Boeing,

was scheduled to fly from Larnaca, Cyprus to Athens,

Greece as Helios Airways Flight 522. After takeoff, the

aircraft failed properly to pressurize. As a result, the

crew and passengers lost consciousness and asphyxiated;

the plane crashed near Athens, Greece, when it ran out

of fuel. Nicos Karakostas, a citizen and resident of

Cyprus, was one of the passengers killed during the crash.

Helios Airways is incorporated and based in Cyprus and,
No. 07-3810 3

3 Helios Airways changed its name to Ajet Aviation after the

accident.

at the time of the accident,3 operated four aircraft on

flights out of airports in Cyprus. The Cyprus Department

of Civil Aviation has regulatory oversight responsibilities

for Helios’ operations. Helios maintains that the United

States’ courts lack subject matter and personal jurisdiction

over it and has refused to produce voluntarily in the

United States any evidence or witnesses in its possession,

custody or control.

Boeing’s Commercial Airplanes division is headquartered in the State of Washington. Boeing maintains in

Washington custody and control of documents and witnesses relevant to the design, manufacture, certification,

testing and customer support services of the 737-300

model aircraft. As a condition of the district court granting

the forum non conveniens dismissal, Boeing agreed to

make available in Cyprus and Greece all evidence and

witnesses under its control.

After the crash, the Greek Air Accident Investigation &

Aviation Safety Board (“Accident Safety Board”) conducted the official accident investigation. Representatives

from the Cyprus Air Accident & Events Investigation

Committee and the United States National Transportation

Safety Board (“NTSB”) also participated. Boeing was a

technical advisor to the NTSB, providing assistance as

requested. The official investigation records, the individuals who conducted the investigation and autopsies and

the recovered aircraft wreckage all are located in Greece.

Although most of the investigative activities occurred in

Greece, certain discrete activities occurred in France,

Germany and the United States.
4 No. 07-3810

On October 10, 2006, the Accident Safety Board delivered

its Final Report; the report attributed the direct causes

of the accident to Helios flight crew errors. This report

was turned over to the Athens criminal prosecutor, who

initiated a Greek criminal investigation for homicide by

intent. The Accident Safety Board found that the flight

crew had failed to recognize that the aircraft’s pressurization system was set to the incorrect manual position.

Because the system was in manual, the aircraft did not

automatically pressurize. The Final Report also found

that the flight crew failed to recognize three warnings

that signaled that the aircraft was not pressurizing. The

Final Report concluded that human error on the part of

the flight and cabin crew contributed to the failure to

recognize the pressurization problems.

The Final Report identified several secondary causes

of the accident, including Helios’ deficiencies in organization, quality management and safety culture, and the

Cyprus Department of Civil Aviation’s inadequate execution of its oversight responsibilities. The Accident Safety

Board also criticized Boeing’s checklists, the 737’s cabin

altitude warning horn and Boeing’s inadequate remedial

response to prior pressurization incidents. After the

publication of the Final Report, Helios agreed not to contest liability in lawsuits filed against it in Greece or Cyprus

and to produce in Greece and Cyprus all witnesses,

documents and other relevant evidence.

Cyprus also undertook investigations into the accident.

Cyprus’ Attorney General began a criminal investigation

immediately after the accident, and the Cypriot police

collected relevant documents and statements from

Cypriot witnesses. The Cyprus Air Accident Committee

also began an investigation. Both investigations were
No. 07-3810 5

ongoing when this appeal was filed. To facilitate the

Cypriot criminal investigation, the Cyprus Council of

Ministers appointed a Commission of Inquiry. The Commission was charged with investigating the events that

led to the accident. It took testimony from many witnesses and collected relevant documents, all of which

are located in Cyprus.

In August 2007, the personal representatives of the

estate of Nicos Karakostas sued Boeing in the Northern

District of Illinois. At the time they filed suit, a number

of wrongful death actions arising out of the crash already

had been filed against Boeing in the United States. The

Multidistrict Litigation Panel had consolidated the suits

in the Northern District of Illinois for pretrial proceedings. Boeing had moved to dismiss based on forum non

conveniens, contending that either Cyprus or Greece

would provide a more convenient forum, and in February

2007, the district court had granted the motion. The

cases related to the crash therefore already having

been dismissed, the personal representatives of Nicos

Karakostas entered a stipulation consenting to the forum

non conveniens dismissal but reserving the right to challenge that dismissal on appeal. The plaintiffs then timely

appealed.

At the time this appeal was filed, legal proceedings

related to the accident were pending both in Greece and

the United States. In Greece, Helios sued Boeing in the

Athens Multi-member Court of First Instance, alleging

that several defects in the airplane had caused the accident. Helios sought consequential damages for lost

future earnings and harm to its reputation. In addition,

after the district court issued its forum non conveniens

dismissal in this litigation, twenty-seven wrongful death
6 No. 07-3810

actions were filed in Greece against Boeing and, in

some cases, Helios, including an action filed against

Boeing and Helios to recover for the wrongful death of

Nicos Karakostas.

II

DISCUSSION

“The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens

allows a trial court to dismiss a suit over which it

would normally have jurisdiction if it best serves the

convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.” In re

Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 420 F.3d 702, 703 (7th Cir. 2005)

(internal quotation marks omitted). Federal courts have

the discretion to dismiss a case on the ground of forum

non conveniens when an adequate available forum

exists and “trial in the chosen forum would establish

oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant out of all

proportion to plaintiff’s convenience, or the chosen forum

is inappropriate because of considerations affecting the

court’s own administrative and legal problems.” Sinochem

Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Co., 127 S. Ct. 1184, 1190

(2007) (alterations omitted) (quotation omitted). “Dismissal

for forum non conveniens reflects a court’s assessment of

a range of considerations, most notably the convenience

to the parties and the practical difficulties that can attend

the adjudication of a dispute in a certain locality.” Id.

(alteration omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The leading case recognizing and delineating the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens is Gulf Oil

Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947). See In re Factor VIII or

IX Concentrate Blood Prods. Litig., 484 F.3d 951, 955 (7th

Cir. 2007). Gulf Oil established that both private and pub-
No. 07-3810 7

lic interest factors ought to inform a court’s forum non

conveniens decision. 330 U.S. at 508-09. The private interest factors that a court may consider include “the relative

ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of

obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of

view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the

action; and all other practical problems that make trial of

a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Id. at 508. The

enforceability of the judgment, if one is obtained, is also

a private interest factor. Id. The public interest factors

include the administrative difficulties stemming from

court congestion; the local interest in having localized

disputes decided at home; the interest in having the trial

of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the

law that must govern the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflicts of laws or in the application

of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens

in an unrelated forum with jury duty. Id. at 508-09. A

district court must be accorded great latitude in

weighing the factors set forth in Gulf Oil. Piper Aircraft

Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). “[W]here the court

has considered all relevant public and private interest

factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference.” Id.

As a general rule, a plaintiff’s choice of forum should

be disturbed only if the balance of public and private

interest factors strongly favors the defendant. Id. at 255;

Sinochem, 127 S. Ct. at 1191. Where, as here, the plaintiff

is a foreign citizen and resident, however, his choice of

the United States as a forum should be accorded less

deference than if the choice is made by a United States

plaintiff. Sinochem, 127 S. Ct. at 1191. “When the plaintiff’s
8 No. 07-3810

choice is not [his] home forum, . . . the presumption in the

plaintiff’s favor ‘applies with less force,’ for the assumption

that the chosen forum is appropriate is in such cases ‘less

reasonable.’ ” Id. (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 255-56).

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s

forum non conveniens determination. Bridgestone, 420

F.3d at 704. The parties concede on appeal that Greece

and Cyprus are adequate and available forums. Our

task, then, is to determine whether the district court

abused its discretion when it found that the private and

public interest factors favored dismissal. See id.

A. Private Interest Factors

The Supreme Court and our cases have described the

private interest factors to be considered by a court when

faced with a forum non conveniens decision. See Gulf

Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09. The private interest factors that

are relevant to this case include the relative ease of

access to sources of proof, the availability of compulsory

process for attendance of unwilling witnesses, the cost

of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses, and other

practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. See Bridgestone, 420 F.3d at 704. The

district court reasonably concluded that other possible

factors were inapplicable or did not significantly weigh

in favor of either party, and the parties do not dispute

that conclusion. Taking the relevant private interest

factors as a whole, it is clear that the district court did not

abuse its discretion when it weighed those factors against

the deference due to the plaintiffs’ choice of forum and

found that the factors favored dismissal. See Sinochem, 127

S. Ct. 1190, 1191; Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 257.
No. 07-3810 9

4 The evidence located in the United States includes evidence

related to the design and manufacture of the 737 aircraft and its

component parts; Boeing’s manuals, warnings, pre-flight

checklists and subsequent revisions; Boeing’s investigations of

and responses to prior pressurization incidents; Boeing’s and

the Government’s investigations of the crash; and components

of the accident airplane’s pressurization and bleed air systems

that were analyzed at Boeing’s laboratory facilities.

The ease of access to proof in Greece and Cyprus favors

dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims. The Greek investigation

into the crash faulted both the airline crew and Boeing;

the record therefore supports both the plaintiffs’ product

liability claim against Boeing and Boeing’s defense that

Helios was responsible for the crash. The sources of

proof relevant to the product liability claim include

evidence and witnesses located in the United States, most

of which is in Boeing’s possession.4

 Boeing has agreed

to make all evidence and witnesses in its possession

available in Greece and Cyprus. The remainder of the

relevant proof, however, is located primarily in Greece

and Cyprus. This information includes the evidence

and witnesses related to Helios and the flight crew, the

primary investigations of the crash and the wreckage,

the post-mortem examinations of the decedents, and

evidence and witnesses related to the families’ pain and

suffering. The district court acted well within its discretion when it concluded that, given Boeing’s agreement

to produce its documents and witnesses in Cyprus and

Greece and the location of the majority of other evidence

in Cyprus and Greece, the relative ease of access to proof

favored those forums over the United States.

The district court also reasonably concluded that the

availability of compulsory process for obtaining unwilling
10 No. 07-3810

witnesses favored dismissal. Compulsory process for

witnesses is available in Cyprus and Greece, including

witnesses related to Helios who would not be subject to

compulsory process in the United States. Helios has

refused to produce voluntarily in the United States its

witnesses and evidence; the parties would need to use

the Hague Convention to obtain those witnesses’ testimony through letters rogatory, and the testimony

would not be live. Given the large number of nonparty

witnesses who may be involved and Boeing’s willingness

to make its witnesses available in Greece and Cyprus,

the court concluded reasonably that the superiority of

live testimony and the inconvenience of taped depositions obtained by letters rogatory favored dismissal.

The district court considered all of the private interest

factors proposed by the parties and reasonably determined that the three discussed factors were the only

relevant private interest factors. Its balancing of the factors

was also reasonable. See Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 257.

When its analysis is assessed in its entirety, the district

court certainly did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the private interest factors favored dismissal.

See id.

B. Public Interest Factors

The record also supports the district court’s evaluation

of the public interest factors. Bridgestone, 420 F.3d at 704.

The court did not have sufficient evidence to enable it to

assess the congestion of the courts in Greece or Cyprus,

but, given that the current median time to trial in the

Northern District of Illinois is twenty-four months, the

judge reasonably concluded that, at best, this factor
No. 07-3810 11

would be neutral. The parties have offered nothing to

contradict or impeach this conclusion. As for the respective local interests, the court noted that, although the

United States has an interest in regulating domestic

companies, its interest is matched by the interests of

Greece and Cyprus in regulating the use of allegedly

defective products within their borders. Moreover,

Greece and Cyprus have an interest in protecting the

health and safety of their residents. Helios is a Cyprusbased company, and 111 of the 115 decedents were nationals of Greece or Cyprus. No decedent was a United

States citizen; only one might have been a United States

resident. Greece and Cyprus have demonstrated interest

in the case through their respective criminal investigations into the crash and through Greece’s official investigation of the crash. As for pressing jurors into service,

the citizens of the Northern District of Illinois have no

local connection to Nicos Karakostas, his personal representatives, the Helios personnel or the development and

manufacture of the Boeing systems likely involved in

the crash. See id. at 705.

In short, the court considered all of the public interest

factors proposed by the parties and concluded that the

relevant factors favored dismissal. Its conclusion was

reasonable and, consequently, there is no reason to disturb it. See Sinochem, 127 S. Ct. at 1190-91; Piper Aircraft,

454 U.S. at 257.

Conclusion

The district court properly considered all relevant

public and private interest factors, and it did not abuse

its discretion when, after weighing those factors against
12 No. 07-3810

the deference that is due to the plaintiffs’ choice of

forum, it determined that these factors favored dismissal.

See Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 257. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

USCA-02-C-0072—7-16-08