D istri ct Ju d g e Je d S
. R ak o ff o f th e U n it ed S tat es D istrict C o u rtfo r th e S o u thern * D i s tr i ctof N ew Y or k, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. 09-1173 -cv Seale s v. Pan amani anAviat ionCo. UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RUL I NGS BY S UM M ARY ORDE R DO NOT HAVE PR E CE DE NT I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O S UM M ARY O R D E R S F IL E D A F T E R JA N U A R Y 1, 20 0 7 , I S P E R M ITT E D A N D I S G O V E R N E D B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S LO C A L RU LE 32 . 1 AN D FEDER A L RU LE O F A PPELLA TE PRO C EDU R E 32 . 1. I N A B R I EF O R O TH ER P A P E R I N WHI C H A L I T I G A N T C I T E S A S U M M A R Y OR D E R , I N E A C H PARA GRAP H I N WHI C H A C I T A T I ON A P P E A R S , AT L E A S T ONE CI T A T I ON M U S T E I T HE R B E T O T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR BE ACCOM PA NI E D BY T HE NOT AT I ON: “ ( S UM M ARY ORDE R) . ” A PA RT Y CI T I NG A S UM M ARY O R D E R M U ST SE R V E A C O P Y O F TH A T SU M M A R Y O R D E R TO G E T H E R W I T H TH E P A P E R IN W H I C H TH E S U M M A R Y O R D ER I S C I TED O N AN Y PAR TY N O T REPR ESENTED BY CO U N SEL U N L E S S T H E S U M M A R Y O R D E R IS A V A IL A B L E IN A N E L E C T R O N IC D A T A B A S E W H IC H IS PU BL I CL Y ACCE S S I BL E W I T HO UT P AYM E NT OF F E E ( S UCH AS T HE DA T ABAS E AVAI L ABL E AT H TTP: // W W W . C A 2. U SCO U R TS. GO V / ) . I F N O C O PY I S SERV ED B Y R EASO N O F TH E AV A I LAB I LI TY OF T HE ORDE R ON S UCH A DAT ABA SE, TH E C I T AT I ON M US T I NCL UDE RE FE RE NCE T O THAT DAT ABAS E AND T HE DOCKET NUM BE R OF T HE CA S E I N W HI CH THE ORDE R W AS E NT E RE D. A t a s tate d ter m o f

th e U n ited S tate s C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e S e c o n d C irc u it, h e ld atthe D ani el Patr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C our thous e, 500 Pear l St r eet , i n the C i tyof N ew Y or k, on t he 11 dayof D ece m ber , tw o thous and ni ne. th P R E S E N T : J O H N M . W A L K E R , J R .,

R E E N A R A G G I,

C i r cui tJudges , J ED S. RA K O FF,

D is tr i ct Judge
. *

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - CA RL O S A
. SEA LES, P lai nt i f f

-Appel lant , v. N o. 09- 1173- cv P ANAMANI AN AVI AT I ON C OM P ANY L I M I T E D, al s o know n as C opa A i r l i ne, D ef endant

-Appel l ee , J A N E D O E , J O H N D O E 1 thr ough 10, i ncl us i ve, the names of the l as tdefe ndant s bei ng fi ct i t i ous , the true2

names of the def

endant s bei ng unknow n t o the pl ai nt i ff,

D e fen da n ts .

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - A P P E A R IN G F O R A P P E L L A N T : O K E C H U K W U V A L E N T IN E N N E B E , N n ebe & N nebe, B r ookl yn, N ew Y or k. APPEARI NG FOR APPELLEE : M A R G U E R IT E D
. P E C K , D o w n ing & Peck P. C
. , N ew Y or k, N ew Y or k. A p p ea l f r om the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof N ew Y o rk (C h a rl e s P . S if

to n , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON, I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJ UDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe j udgm entent er ed on February23, 2009, i s AF F I RMED
. Pl ai nt i ff Car l os Seal es s ued def endantPanamani an A vi at i on C om p anyfori nj ur i es
ar i s i ng fr om hi s arr es t and det ent i on i n J amai ca for i l l egal i m por t at i on and pos s es s i on of a fi r earm and amm uni t i on. H e now appea l s fro m the di s m i s s al of hi s compl ai ntforl ack of
s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on and forum non conveni ens . W e r evi ew de novo the di s m i s s al of
a c o m p lain t p u rsu a n t to F e d e ra l R u le o f C iv il P ro c e d u re 1 2 (b )(1 ). S e e Ja g h o ryv . N .Y . S tate D ep’ tof Educ. , 131 F. 3d 326, 329 ( 2d C i r . 1997)
. W e r evi ew a forum non conveni ens di s m i s s al “def

er ent i al l yforabus e of di s cr et i on. ” N or ex Petr ol eum L t d. v. A cce s s I ndus
. , 416 F
. 3 d 1 4 6 , 1 5 3 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 5 ). W e a ssu m e the p arti es’ f am il iari tyw ith the f

ac ts an d rec o rd
o f p r i o rp r o c e e d i n g s , wh i c h we r e f e r e n c e o n l y a s n e c e s s a ry t o e x p l a i n o u rd e c i s i o n t o a f f i r m.3

1. M ontr eal C onvent i on P lain tiff f irst su b m its th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th a t, t o th e e x ten t h is cl ai m s ar os e outof def endant ’ s del i veryof hi s fi r earm and amm u n it i on t o the l uggage
car ous el r atherthan t o the appr opr i at e J amai can a uthor i t i es , theyw er e pr eem p ted byt he M ontr eal C onvent i on. See C onvent i on forthe U ni fi cat i on of C ert ai n R ul es forI nt ernat i onal C ar r i a g e b yAi ra r t . 2 9 , M a y2 8 , 1 9 9 9 , S. Tr e a tyDoc
. No. 1 0 6
- 4 5 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ M o nt r eal C onvent i on”)
. W e nee d notcons true the pr eempt i ve sco p e o f the M ontr eal C onvent i on b ec au se w e thin k the “less bu rde n so m e co u rse” in th is ca se, w h ich w as dism issed o n lyin p art
o n this gro u n d , is to add ress th e c learer f o rum n o n co n v en iens inq u iryfirst
. S ino ch em Int’l C o. v. M al ay si a Int ’l S hippi ng C orp. , 54 9 U
. S
. 42 2, 43 6 (200 7) ( perm i t t i ng cou rt s t o d i sm i ss,
w i thout fi r s tcons i der i ng thei rj ur i s di ct i on, i f “f orum non conveni ens cons i der at i ons w ei gh h ea v il yin f

av o r of d ism issal”). 2. For um N

on C onveni ens O u r an aly sis of

fo rum n o n co n v en iens fo ll o w s the th ree -st ep testset fo rth in Irag o rri
v. U ni t ed Technol ogi es C orp. , 274 F. 3d 65, 73- 74 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( en banc )
. “A ts t ep one,
a c o u r td e t e r mi n e s th e d e g r e e o f d e f e r e n c e p r o p e r l y a c c o r d e d th e p l a i n t i f f ’ s c h o i c e o f

f o ru m. A t ste p tw o , itc o n sid e rs w h e th e r th e a ltern a tiv e f o ru m p ro p o se d b yth e d e f e n d a n ts is
a d e q u a te to a d

ju d ica te th e p a rties ’ d isp u te. F in a lly , a t s tep th re e , a c o u rt b a lan c e s th e p riv a te and pu bli c i nter est s i m pli cat ed in the ch oice o f f orum . ” N orex P et rol eum L t d. v. A ccess4

I ndus
. , I n c . , 4 1 6 F. 3 d a t1 5 3 ( c i t i n g I r a g o rr i v . Uni t e d Te c h s . Corp . , 2 7 4 F. 3 d a t7 3
- 74) (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted).

a. Pl ai nt i ff’ s R es i dence Pl ai nt i ff s ubm i t s thatthe di s tr i ct courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on ats t ep one byconcl udi ng thathe di d notr es i de i n the U ni t ed St at es . See Ir agorr i v. U ni t ed T echs
. C orp. , 274 F. 3d at 7 3 & n .5 (n o tin g p lain tiff ’s f o ru m c h o ice is e n tit led to d e f e re n c e w h e n b a se d o n leg iti m a te
r eas ons , i ncl udi ng pl ace of r es i dence )
. O urr evi ew of the r ecor d r evea l s the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) i n 2 0 0 6 , p l a i n t i f

f s p e n to n l yf

i f t e e n d a y s i n th e Un i t e d S t a t e s a n d s p e n ta ma j o r i tyo f h i s t i me i n J amai ca; (2 ) p lain tiff w a s in Ja m a ica w h e n h is c o m p lain t w a s f iled in Ju ly 2 0 0 7 ; (3 ) w h ile pl ai nt i ff di d s pend m or e t i m e i n t he U ni t ed St at es than i n J amai ca i n 2007, he s t i l l s pentthe
m aj or i tyof the y earout s i de t hi s country ; ( 4) pl ai nt i ff r epr es ent ed t o J amai can pol i ce i n 2005 that h e n o lon g er li v ed in B roo k lyn ; (5 ) p lai n ti ff ’s a tt o rne y rep rese n ted to a Ja m aica n co u rt i n 2005 or2006 thathe w as i n the pr oces s of m ovi ng t o J amai ca; ( 6) pl ai nt i ff’ s curr entw i fe and chi l dr en l i ve i n J amai ca; and (7) pl ai nt i ff r ece i ves m ai l , m ai nt ai ns a j oi ntbank ac count
w ith h is w ife, an d h as a tr ea ti n g p h y sici an in Ja m aica
. O n this rec o rd, w e i d en ti fy n o erro r,
m uch l es s cl ear err or s i gnal i ng an abus e of di s cr et i on, i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s fac tual fi ndi ng that pl ai nt i ff di d not r es i de i n the U ni t ed St at es and that , ther efor e, hi s choi ce of forum w as ent i t l ed t o l es s defe r ence . See i d. at72.Pl ai nt i ff c oncl us or i l yar gues that“[n] o thi ng i n the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatdefe ndant 1 i s w i l l i n g t o s u b m i ti t s e l f t o j u r i s d i c t i o n i n J a m a i c a . ” A p p e l l a n t ’ s B r . a t 1 9
. T o th e c o n tr a r y, i n concl udi ng thatJ amai ca w as an ade quat e al t ernat i ve foru m , the di s tr i ctcourtnot ed that defen d an t argued t hati ti s s ubj ectt o s ervi ce of pr oces s i n J amai ca, and pl ai nt i ff di d not cont es t t h a tp o i n t . M o r e o v e r , i n h i s r e p l yb r i e f , p l a i n t i f f n o t e s th a td e f

e n d a n t“ ma ybe amenabl e t o s ervi ce of

pr oces s i n J amai ca. ” A ppel l ant ’ s R epl yB r . at5.

5 b. A dequac yof J amai can Forum Pl ai nt i ff ne xtasserts thatthe di s tr i ctcourtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on ats t ep tw o by
c o n c lu d in g th a t Ja m a ica w a s a n a d e q u a te a ltern a tiv e f o ru m . “A n a ltern a tiv e f o ru m is gener al l yadequa t e i f: ( 1) the def endant s ar e subj ect t o s ervi ce of pr oces s ther e; and ( 2) the f o ru m p e rm its lit ig a tio n o f th e su b jec t m a tter o f

th e d isp u te.” S e e B a n k o f C re d it & C om m er ce I nt ’ l ( O ver s eas ) L t d. v. St at e B ank of Paki s t an, 273 F. 3d 241, 246 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)
. Pl ai nt i ff doe s notm eani ngful l ydi s put e that defe ndant s w oul d be s ubj ectt o s ervi ce of pr oces s i n J amai ca; he ar gues onl ythatthe di s tr i ct 1
courterr ed i n notm aki ng cert ai n expr es s fi ndi ngs w i th r es pect t o w hethera J amai can f orum
w ou l d p erm i tl i t i gati on of h i s cl ai m s. A lth o u g h p lain tiff

c o rre c tly n o tes th a t an a ltern a tiv e f o ru m is n o t ad e q u a te if

a sta tu te of l i m i t at i ons bar s the s ui t , s ee N or ex Petr ol eum L t d. v. A cce s s I ndus , I nc. , 416 F. 3d at159,
w e ide n ti fyn o ab u se o f d iscreti o n h ere b ec au se p lai n ti ff d id n o t raise this argu m en t bef o re the d istri ct c o u rt , see B o g le-A sseg ai v. C o n n ec ti cu t, 4 7 0 F
. 3 d 4 9 8 , 5 0 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ) (“[I]t i s a w el l
- es t abl i s hed gene r al rul e thatan appe l l at e courtw i l l not cons i der an i s s ue r ai s ed forI n hi s r epl ybr i ef, pl ai nt i ff a r gues that J amai ca i s an i nadequa t e forum beca us e the 2 M o n tre a l C o n v e n ti o n ’ s tw o -y e a r sta tu te o f lim itatio n s n o w b a rs h im f ro m b rin g in g in J amai ca the cl ai m s that the di s tr i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed i n the U ni t ed St at es forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. E ven as s um i ng that pl ai nt i ff corr ect l y char act er i zes the M ontr eal C onvent i on a n d o u r sta n d a rd s re g a rd in g th e a d e q u a c yo f a ltern a tiv e f

o ra , th is a rg u m e n t still f a ils to p e rsu a d e . T o th e e x te n t th a t th e M o n tre a l C o n v e n tio n a p p lies to p lain tiff ’s c laim s, it pr ecl udes hi m fr om br i ngi ng them atal l i n pl ai nt i ff’ s chos en f o rum , beca us e the U ni t ed St at es i s notthe d o m ici le o f the ca rr i er , the pr i nci pal pl ace of bus i nes s of the ca rr i er , t he pl ace w her e the contr actw as m ade, the pl ace of des t i nat i on, or the pr i nci pal and perm anent r es i dence of the pas s enger . See M ontr eal C onvent ion art . 33. T o the ext entthe M ont r eal C onvent i on does notgovern hi s cl ai m s , as pl ai nt i ff otherw i s e ur ges us t o hol d, i t s tw o- y ear s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons cannotpr ecl ude hi m fr om l i t i gat i ng i n J amai ca. 6 th e f irst tim e o n a p p e a l.” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d )). E v e n n o w , h e f a ils to id e n tif ya n ylim ita tio n s p e ri o d th a t w o u ld p re c lu d e h im f ro m litig a tin g in J a m a ic a . P lain tiff ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e M o n tre a l C o n v e n tio n re n d e rs J a m a ica a n in a d e q u a te f o ru m is sim ilarly u n a v a ili n g . A s a g e n e ra l m a tter, “‘[ t]h e a v a ilab ili ty o f a n a d e q u a te al t ernat i ve foru m does notdepend on the exi s t ence of the i dent i cal caus e of a ct i on i n the otherforum , ’ noron i dent i cal r emedi es . ” N or ex Petr ol eum L t d. v. A cce s s I ndus
. , I nc. , 416 F
. 3 d at 1 5 8 (cit ing P T U n it ed C an C o . v . C row n C o rk & S ea l C o . , 1 3 8 F
. 3 d 6 5 , 7 4 (2d C ir
. 1998) )
. M or eover , b ec au se th e M o n tr ea l C o n v en ti o n also ap p li es in p lai n ti ff ’s ch o sen U ni t ed St at es forum , w e cannot concl ude that i t s i m pos i t i on of the s ame l i m i t at i ons in Ja m ai ca
r ender s thatforum i nadequa t e. A ccor di ngl y , w e det ectno abus e of di s cr et i on i n the di s tr i ct 2
c o u r t ’ s c o n c l u s i o n th a tJ a ma i c a i s a n a d e q u a t e a l t e rn a t i v e f o ru m.7 c . B a lan c in g o f

P u b lic a n d P riv a te I n ter e sts Pl ai nt i ff a l s o cont ends thatthe di s tr i ctcourterr ed ats t ep thr ee i n bal anci ng publ i c and p ri v ate interest fa cto rs . S ee P iper A ir cra ft C o . v . R ey n o , 4 5 4 U
. S
. 2 3 5 , 2 4 1 & n . 6 (19 8 1 ); accord Ir ago rr i v. U nit ed T echs. C orp. , 27 4 F
. 3d at73 -74. A s t o the pri vate i nter est s, pl ai nt i ff a r gues thatdefe ndant ’ s empl oy ees ar e l ocat ed i n Panama, no t Ja m aica, and that ther efor e J amai ca w oul d notbe a mor e conve ni entforum than the U ni t ed St at es . I n fac t , t he dis tri ct cou rt corr ect l y no t ed this factbu tnev ertheles s concluded that other keyw i tnesses – namel y , cus t om s and pol i ce of fi cer s , r epr es ent at i ves of the gun co u r t , and ai rpor tbaggage handl er s – w er e pr es ent i n J amai ca and not s ubj ect t o U ni t ed St at es j ur i s di ct i on. W e i dent i fy
no abus e of di s cr et i on i n the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s concl us i on thatthe pr es ence of thes e w i tnes s es i n J amai ca t i l t ed the pr ivate i nt er es tbal ance i n favorof di s m i s s al
. See G ul f O i l C orp. v. G i l bert , 330 U
. S. 501, 508- 09 ( 1947) ( hol di ng thatpr i vat e i n terest f ac t or s i ncl ude the “ava i l abi l i tyof compul s orypr oces s foratt endanc e of unw i l l i ng, and the cos tof obtaining att en d an ce o f w il li n g , w itn esse s”). A s t o the publ i c i nt er es t s , pl ai nt i ff a r gues that the di s tr i ct court confl at ed publ i c and p riv a te in ter e st f

a c to rs in c o n c lu d in g th a t J a m a ica h a d a stro n g e r in ter e st in a d ju d ica tin g th is
cas e. T o the contr ary , the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s anal y s i s of the publ i c i nt er es tfac t or s turned on the factthat the ev ents givi ng ri se t o this a c tio n occu rr ed in Jam ai ca. Indeed , plai nti ff’s cas e even i nvol ves the J amai can l egal s y s t em. T he di s tr i ct court ther efor e corr ect l ydet erm i ned8

that the p ub l i c i nter est s w ei gh ed in favo r of a Jam ai can f orum . S ee i d. at50 9 ( “T here i s a loca l i n terest i n h av ing loca li ze d co n tr o v ersies d ec ided at ho m e.”).

d. R econs i der at i on of For um N on C onveni ens Fi nal l y , pl ai nt i ff s ubm i t s thatthe di s tr i ct court err ed i n r econs i der i ng i t s ear l i erforum non conveni ens rul i ng. T o the ext ent d ef en d antm oved t o di s m i s s the amended compl ai nt
o n fo r um no n c o n v e n i e n s g r o u n d s , we c o n s tru e th a tmo t i o n a s a mo t i o n f o rr e l i e f f r o m a j udgm entbas ed on new l ydi s cover ed ev idence. See Fed. R
. C i v. P. 60( b) ( 2)
. W hi l e the di s tr i ct court has di s cr et i on t o r econs i der i t s deci s i ons , thatdi s cr et i on i s l i m i t ed t o, i nt eral i a, “ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch new evi dence i s avai l abl e. ” St i cht i ng T erB eh art i gi ng V an de B el angen V an O udaande el houder s I n H et K api t aal V an Saybol tI nt ’ l B
. V
. v. Schr ei ber , 407 F .3 d 3 4 , 4 4 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). H e re , p lain tiff ’s p a ss p o rt re c o rd s, w h ic h w e re p ro d u c e d o n ly aft erthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on on defe ndant ’ s fi r s tm ot i on t o di s m i s s , r ev e a l ed thatpl ai nt i ff
w a s n o t a U n ite d S ta te s re s id e n t a n d th e re f o re a lte re d th e f

o ru m n o n c o n v e n ie n s b a la n c e . P lain tiff a p p e a rs to a rg u e th a t d e c isio n s b a se d o n f o ru m n o n c o n v e n ien s u n iq u e ly p re c lu d e re c o n s id e ra tio n b y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . W e di s agr ee. W hi l e, or di nar i l y , a forum non
c o n v e n ien s d ism iss a l h a s n o p re c lu siv e e f f e c t in a d if

f e re n t f o ru m , w h e re site -sp e c if ic
c o n v e n ien c e f

a c to rs a p p lyd if

f e re n tl y, “ iss u e p re c lu sio n is a p p ro p ria te if th e iss u e a c tu a lly
r emai ns the s ame. ” 18A A l an W r i ght , A r thurR
. M i l l er& M aryK ayK ane, Feder al Pr act i ce and Pr ocedur e, § 4436, at173-74 (3d ed
. 2 0 07)
. H er e, how ever , the i ntr oduct i on of new9

ev iden ce alt ere d the b alan ce o f th e c o n v en ienc e f ac tors an d justi fied th e d istri ct co u rt ’s
r econs i der at i on of the i s s ue. W e ther efor e i dent i fyno abus e of di s cr et i on. W e have cons i der ed pl ai nt i ff’ s other ar gum ent s on appea l and concl ude thattheyl ack
m e rit. A c c o rd in g ly , w e A F F IR M th e ju d g m e n t o f th e d istric t co u rt. FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt
B y :

___________________________________