FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 2 7, 20 09 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 11 03 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 3- 20 48 2- CV-FAM JAC K KING, as p ers on al rep res en ta ti ve of t he Est at e o f Je ss ic a Kin g, d ecea se d, Pl ai nt iff Cro ss -Ap pe ll ee, BARBARA BREGA, ANETTE FORSM AN, in di vi du al ly and/o r as pe rs on al rep res en ta ti ve an d/ oras the Pers on leg al ly autho riz ed un de r ap pl ic ab le law t o b rin g t hi s wro ng fu l d eat h c as e fo r he rs el f, al l p ot en ti al be ne fic ia rie s an d/ orThe Es ta te of Ro bi n F or sm an , dec eas ed , et al
. , Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us CESSNA AIRC RAFT CO., a Kan sa s co rp or at io n, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee Cro ss -Ap pe ll an t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So uthe rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 27 , 20 09 ) Befo re DUBINA, BLACK an d F AY, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Si xt y -n in e Eur op ean pl ai nt iff s ap pe al th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d is m is si ng th ei r cas e ag ai ns t Ce ss naAirc raftCo m pa ny onth e b as is of

fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns . W e fi ndno ab us e o f di sc ret io n a ndth eref or e aff irm. I. BACKGROUND Thi s ca se ari se s o utof atra gi c p la ne cras h t ha t o ccu rredat Li na te Airp ort i n Mi la n, It al y , onOcto be r 8, 2 00 1. Onth atfog gy m orni ng , a pr iv at e Ces sn a jet op erat edby A ir Ev ex , a Germ anch art er co m pa ny, m ad e a wro ng tu rnan d t ax ie d to wardanact iv e ru nway , cau si ng itto co ll id e wit h S can di na vi anAirl in es Fli gh t 68 6, wh ic h was jus t t ak in g fl ig ht . One h un dr edeig ht een pe op le di ed , in cl ud in g ev eryone on bo ardbo th pl an es an d fo ur pe op le on th e g ro un d, an d o th ers on th e gr ou ndwere i njured
. InMarc h 2 00 3, a c om

pl ai ntwas fi le d a ga in stCes sn a Air craf t Co m pany (Ces sn a) i n t he So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a b y th e Kin g fa mil y , act in g a s p ers on al rep res en ta ti ve s o f th e es ta te of J es si ca Ki ng (Kin g P la in ti ffs ). Ther eaft er, 6 9 Euro pe anpl ai nt iff

s (Eu ro pe anPla in ti ffs ) br ou gh t s ui ts ag ai ns t Ce ss na , whi chwere co ns ol id at edwith t he Kin g P la in ti ffs ’ cas e fo r adm in is tra ti ve pu rp os es . On Octo be r 21 , 20 05 , th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d i n p artCes sn a’s m ot io n t o d is m is s t he
cas e as to th e Eur op ean Pla in ti ffs on fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns gro un ds , den ie d i n p art th e m ot io n wi th reg ardto th e Kin g P la in ti ffs , andst ay edth e Kin g P la in ti ffs ’ cas e 2pe nd in g re so lu ti on of I ta li andi sp ut es rel at in g t o the Euro pe anPla in ti ffs
. Ki ng ex
re l. Estat e o

f Ki ng v. Ces sn a Ai rc ra

ft Co
. , 40 5 F . Sup p. 2 d 1 37 4, 1 38 1 (S .D. Fla. 20 05 ). Afterbo th gro up s o f pl ai nt iff s ap pe al ed , we vac at edth e d is tri ctco urt’s st ay an d d is m is sa l o rd ers an d re m an de d the cas e. Ki ng v. Ces sn a Ai rc ra

ft Co
. , 50 5 F.3 d 1 16 0, 1 17 3 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . W it ho utex pr es si ng any vi ew on th e co rrec tn es s of th e d is tri ctco urt’s fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns an al y si s, we i ns tru ct edth e d is tri ct
co urt t o c on si de r whe th er, kno win g “ itco ul d n otav oi d dua l p ro ceed in gs by st ay in g t he Ki ng cas e, itm ig htha ve di sm is se d a ll of the pl ai nt iff s, i nc lu di ng Kin g, orall owe d a ll of t he pl ai nt iff s t o p ro ceedhe re, o r pe rh ap s p ur su edso m e o th er av enue .” Id
. On re m an d, Ce ss naren ewedit s m ot io n t o d is mis s b ot h t he Kin g P la in ti ffs ’
an d Eu ro pe anPla in ti ffs ’ co m pl ai nt s o n t he ba si s o f

fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns . The di st ric t co urt “ el ect [ed ] to ‘ pu rs ue so m e o th er av enue ’” and , forth e rea so ns it pr ev io us ly gav e, gr an te d i n p artth e m ot io n t o d is mis s wi th reg ardto th e Eur op ean Pl ai nt iff s an d d en ie d i t i n p artwith re ga rdto th e Kin g P la in ti ffs
. Ki ng v. Ces sn a Air cr af t Co
. , No. 0 3- 20 48 2, 2 00 8 WL 27 60 15 , at * 2 (S .D. Fla. J an . 31 , 20 08 ). On Feb ru ary 11 , 20 08 , Ces sn a fi le d am ot io n t o am en d t he jud gm en t, as ki ng th e di st ric t co urt t o “ cert ify its de ci si on to di sm is s t he [Eur op ean Pla in ti ffs ] as a fi na l jud gm en t” pu rs ua ntto Fed . R. Civ . P. 54 (b ) an d “ in cl ud e a ce rti fic at e fo r 3in te rlo cu to ry rev ie w pu rs ua ntto 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 2( b) ” o f th e p orti on of the ord er de nyin g t he m ot io n t o d is m is s t he Kin g P la in ti ffs . The d is tri ctco urt i ss ue d afin al jud gm en t p ur su an t t o R

ul es 54 an d 5 8, b utde ni edCes sn a’s m ot io n fo r cert ifi cat io n u nd er § 12 92 (b ). The Euro pe anPla in ti ffs ap pe al edth ei r di sm is sa l,
an d C es sn a fi le d acro ss -ap pe al of t he ord er “ to th e ex te ntsai d o rd er . . . den ie d Ces sn a’s m ot io n t o d is m is s t he cla im s o f pl ai nt iff Jac k Ki ng .” II. JUR ISDICTI ON Dis m is sa l o f a s ui t o n t he ba si s o f fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns is a fi na l, ap pe al ab le ord er. Si

ga la s v. Li do Mar ., Inc
. , 77 6 F .2d15 12 , 15 16 (11 thCir
. 19 85 ). The d is tri ctco urt d idno t co ns ol id at e th e Eur op ean Pla in ti ffs ’ cas e with t he Kin g P la in ti ffs ’ cas e fo r al l p ur po se s, s o the Euro pe anPla in ti ffs canap pe al th e di sm is sa l o f th ei r cas e wit ho utwait in g fo r a fi na l d et erm in at io n o f th e Kin g Pl ai nt iff s’ cas e. Se e Lew is Ch ar te rs , Inc . v. Huckin s Y ac ht Co rp . , 87 1 F .2d10 46 , 10 48 -4 9 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 9) . The d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er i s fi na l as to th e Eur op ean Pl ai nt iff s, s o we h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th ei r ap pe al
. W e d o n ot , ho wev er, h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w Ces sn a’s cro ss -ap pe al
. Unl ik e th e m ai n app eal , th e d en ia l o f a m ot io n t o d is mis s o n t he ba si s o f fo ru m
no n c on ven ie ns is no t a f in al ord er. Se e Van Ca uw en be rghe v. Bia rd , 48 6 U.S. 51 7, 5 29 , 10 8 S . Ct. 1 94 5, 1 95 3 (1 98 8) . Furt he rm or e, we can no t i nf er the di st ric t 4co urt i nt en de d t o c ert ify for i m m ed ia te rev ie w th e d en ia l o f th e m ot io n t o d is m is s th e Kin g P la in ti ffs . The m ot io n fo r en try of a Ru le 54 (b ) certi fic at io n fi le d b y Ces sn a as ke d fo r a Ru le 54 (b ) certi fic at io n o nl y with re ga rdto th e d is m is sa l o f th e Euro pe anPla in ti ffs , andth e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d C es sn a’s reque stforcert ifi cat io n of th atde ni al un de r 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 2( b) . Ces sn a arg ue s t hi s C ou rt h as pe nd en t ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w it s cr os s- ap pe al . W e d is ag ree. Pen de ntap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on is pre se ntwhen a no napp eal ab le de ci si on is

“ in ex tri cab ly int ertwin ed ” wit h the ap pe al ab le de ci si on or wh en“ rev ie w of t he fo rm er d eci si on [is ] ne ces sa ry to en su re m ean in gf

ul rev ie w of the lat te r.” Sw in t v. Ch amb er s C ou nt y Co mm’n , 51 4 U.S. 3 5, 5 1, 1 15 S. Ct. 1 20 3, 1 21 2 (1 99 5) ; see al so Su mmit

Med . Ass oc s., P.C. v. Pry or , 18 0 F .3d13 26 , 13 35 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Und er the se gu id el in es , su ch juri sd ic ti on canbe pre se ntev enwhen th e p en de nt ap pe al in vo lv es a pa rty no t i n t he m ai n app eal
. Sti ll , th e Supr em e Co urt h as 1 The KingPlaintiffs argued Swint absolutely

bars “pendent pa

rty jurisdiction”— i.e., 1 pendent jurisdiction over

a par ty not involved in the main appea l. Howeve r, the a ppropriate inquiry under Swint is not whether the pe ndent appe al involves a diff ere nt party than is in the main appea l but whether the issues of the nona ppeala ble dec ision are “ inext rica bly intertwined” with the appea lable dec ision or when “r eview of the forme r dec ision [ is] nece ssary to ensure meaning ful revie w of the la tter.” See Swint , 514 U.S. at 51, 115 S. Ct . at 1212. I ndeed, the Supreme Court, our Circuit, and ne arly ever y other c ourt of appe als has exerc ised pende nt appellate jurisdiction over closely related issues eve n when the pe ndent appe al involved par ties not involved in the main appea l. See Clinton v. Jone s , 520 U.S. 681, 707 n.41, 117 S. C t. 1636, 1651 n.41 (1997) ( aff

irming jurisdiction to revie w Paula Jones’ cross-a ppeal a s pendent to President Clinton’s im munity appea l even though J ones’ a ppeal involved a

party who was not 5si gn al edth atpe nd en t ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on sh ou ldbe pre se nton ly und er ra re

ci rcu m st an ces . Se e Jo hn so n v . Jon es , 51 5 U.S. 3 04 , 31 8, 1 15 S. Ct. 2 15 1, 2 15 9 (1 99 5) (in di cat in g p en de ntap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on is on ly app ro pr ia te “ so m et im es ”); Sw in t , 51 4 U.S. at49 -5 0, 1 15 S. Ct. at12 11 (ex pr es si ng co nc ernth at“ a ru le lo os el y all owi ng pe nd en t ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on wou lden co ur ag e p art ie s t o p arl ay . . . col la te ral ord ers in to m ul ti -is su e in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al ti ck et s” ). As n ot edin Sw in t , a m or e ex pa ns iv e ex erci se of s uc h juris di ct io n wo ul d u nd erm in e th e st atut ory sch em e g ov ern in g i nt erl oc ut ory ap pe al s. Sw in t , 51 4 U.S. at45 -5 0, 1 15

involved in the immunit y appea l); Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp , 526 F.3d 1353, 1358- 59 (11th Cir. 2008) (exerc ising jurisdiction to review a grant of summar

y judgme nt pertainingto all defe ndants bec ause it “pr ovided the basis for the injunction” enter ed ag ainst and appe aled by a few of the de fenda

nts); see also Global NAPs, Inc. v . Mass. Dep’ t of Telecomms. & Energy , 427 F.3d 34, 43 ( 1st Cir. 2005); Morley v . Ciba-Geigy Corp. , 66 F.3d 21, 22 n.1 ( 2d Cir. 1995); In re Tutu W ells Contaminati on Liti

g. , 120 F.3d 368, 382 ( 3d Cir. 1997); Mattox v. City of Forest Park, 183 F.3d 515, 523- 24 (6th Cir. 1999); Gree nwell v. Aztar Ind. Gaming Corp. , 268 F.3d 486, 491 (7th Cir. 2001); Eagle v. M organ , 88 F.3d 620, 628 ( 8th Cir. 1996); Huske y v. City of San Jose , 204 F.3d 893, 904 ( 9th Cir. 2000); Moore v . City of W ynnewood, 57 F.3d 924, 929 (10th Cir. 1995); NAACP v. U.S. Sugar Corp. , 84 F.3d 1432, 1436 ( D.C. Cir. 1996). In case s with the same fa ctual sce nario a s Swint —an off icial immunity

appea l in which there was a

n appea l by

another party who could not asser

t official immunity

—we ha ve dec lare d there was no “ pendent pa rty jurisdiction.” See, e .g., Hudson v. Hall , 231 F.3d 1289, 1292 n.1 (11th Cir. 2000); Harris v. Bd. of Educ. of Atlanta , 105 F.3d 591, 595 ( 11th Cir. 1997) (per curiam); Picke ns v. Hollowell , 59 F.3d 1203, 1208 ( 11th Cir. 1995). Although w e interpr eted Swint to bar pe ndent par

ty jurisdiction under those circumstance s, the Supreme Court lef t open the possibilit y

for suc h jurisdiction in other, albeit narr ow, contexts. See Swint , 514 U.S. at 50- 51, 115 S. Ct . at 1212 (de clining to “ definitively or pre emptively

settle . . . whethe r or whe n it may be prope r . . . to revie w, conjunctively , related ruling s that are not themselves independe ntly appea lable”) ; Charles Alan Wright & Ar thur R. Mill er, 16 F eder al Prac tice & Procedur e § 3937 (2008). 6S. Ct . at 1 20 9- 11 ; se e a ls o 28 U.S.C. § 1 29 2( b) , (e); Gilda Mar x, In c. v. W

ildw oo d Exer cise, Inc
. , 85 F.3d67 5, 6 79 (D.C. Cir . 19 96 ) (n ot in g t he m an y fact or s t ha t weig h a ga in stex erci si ng pe nd en t ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ). Our C irc ui t h as fou nd pe nd en t ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on inon ly lim it edfactua l s cen ari os . In Foxv. Tys on Foo ds , Inc
. , we fou ndth ere was pe nd en t juris di ct io n t o rev ie w th os e p orti on s o f anot he rwis e n on ap pe al ab le co ll ect iv e act io n o rd er the di st ric t co urt re li edonwhen de nyin g t he m ot io n t o i nt erv en e th atwas app eal ed
. 51 9 F .3d12 98 , 13 02 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ); se e a ls o C hu da sa ma v. Mazd

a Mo to r Co rp . , 12 3 F .3d13 53 , 13 65 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (ex erci si ng pe nd en t juris di ct io n t o rev ie w an o th erwi se no napp eal ab le co m pe l o rd er b ecau se th e ap pe al edsan ct io ns or de r was is su edinpa rt f or th e d efen da nt ’s pu rp orte d v io la ti on of the co m pe l
or de r). W e ex pr es sl y

de te rm in edth ere was no juri sd ic ti on , ho wev er, t o re vi ew fin di ng s i n t he co ll ect iv e act io n o rd er upo n wh ic h t he di st ric t co urt d idno t re ly. Fox , 51 9 F .3dat 1 30 2. In Uni te d Sta tes v. Lo pe z-Lu kis , we exe rci se d p en de nt ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on ov er an ot he rwis e n on ap pe al ab le ord er s tri ki ng a parag rap h of th e in di ctm en t b ecau se th e st rik e was “ cl os el y rel at edto [th e d is tri ctco urt’s]
ex cl us io n o f th e Gov ern m en t’s ev id en ce” tha t was on rev ie w. 10 2 F .3d11 64 , 11 67 n.1 0 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 7)
. W e rea so ne d t ha t “ rev ie w of t he ev id en ti ary ru li ng
7ne ces sa ril y

im pl ic at e[d ] rev ie w of t he ord er s tri ki ng [th e p arag rap h] fro m th e in di ctm en t” be cau se “ [b ]oth ord ers res ul te d fr om th e sa m e d et erm in at io n[ .] ” Id. Im po rta nt ly, we ha ve fou ndsu chjuri sd ic ti on di d n otex is t wh enres ol ut io n of th e n on ap pe al ab le is su e was no t n eces sa ry to res ol ve th e ap pe al ab le on e. Se e Su mmit Med. Ass oc s. , 18 0 F .3dat 1 33 5 (“ [W] e m ay res ol ve th e Ele ve nt h Am en dm en t i m

m un it y is su e h ere wi th ou t re ach in g the m eri ts of s ta nd in g[ , so t]he se is su es are n ei th er ‘in ex tri cab ly int ertwin ed ’ no r ‘nece ss ary to en su re
m ean in gf ul rev ie w’ of o ne an ot he r.”); Mon izv. Cit y o f Fo rt La uderda le , 14 5 F .3d 12 78 , 12 81 n.3 (11 th Cir . 19 98 ) (“ Bec au se we m ay res ol ve th e qua li fie d i m

m un it y is su e in th is cas e wit ho utreac hi ng th e m eri ts of app el la nt s’ cha ll en ge to . . . st an di ng , . . . we co nc lu de th atth e la tt er i ss ue . . . do es no t fa ll withi n o urpe nd en t ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on un de r Sw in t .”); Har ris v. Bd. of Edu c. of Atlan ta , 10 5 F .3d 59 1, 5 95 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (d ecl in in g p en de ntap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on be cau se th e qu al ifi edimm

un it y is su e co ul d b e res ol ve d “ witho utreac hi ng th e m eri ts of the
rem ai ni ng qu es ti on s” rai se d b y th e p art ie s)
. Inth e Ele ve nt h C irc ui t, we h av e n ev er ex erci se d p en de ntap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w an i ss ue li ke th e o ne rai se d b y th e cro ss -ap pe al . The d is tri ct
co urt d idno t b as e it s d eci si on of wh ethe r to di sm is s t he Euro pe anPla in ti ffs on it s
8de ci si on as t o t he Kin g P la in ti ffs
. Se e Ki ng ex r el . Estat e o

f Ki ng , 40 5 F . Sup p. 2 d at13 78 -8 1 (ci te d b y Ki ng , 20 08 W L 27 60 15 , at * 2) ; cf . Fox , 51 9 F .3dat 1 30 2; Ch ud as ama , 12 3 F .3dat 1 36 5. Th e o rd ers di d n otres ul t fr om th e sa m e de te rm in at io n b ecau se , altho ug h s om e o f th e fac to rs inth e fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns an al y si s ap pl ie d e qu al ly to b ot h t he Euro pe anPla in ti ffs an d t he Kin g P la in ti ffs , th e di st ric t co urt’s o rd er cl earl y sh ows th e an al y si s was co nduc te d s ep arat el y for bo th gr oups . Se e Ki ng

ex r el . Estat e o

f Ki ng , 40 5 F . Sup p. 2 d a t 1 37 8- 81 (ci te d b y Ki ng , 20 08 W L 27 60 15 , at * 2) ; cf. Lo pe z-Lu kis , 10 2 F .3dat 1 16 7 n .10
. Fu rth erm or e, a d et erm in at io n o f th e p ro pr ie ty of th e d is tri ctco urt’s re fu sa l t o di sm is s t he Kin g P la in ti ffs is no t n eces sa ry to res ol ve th e p ro pr ie ty of it s d eci si on to di sm is s t he Euro pe anPla in ti ffs for fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns . Se e S ummi t Med
. Ass oc s. , 18 0 F .3dat 1 33 5; Mon iz , 14 5 F .3dat 1 28 1 n .3; Har ris , 10 5 F .3dat 5 95
. Fo r th es e rea so ns , we wil l re vi ew th e Eur op ean Pla in ti ffs ’ ap pe al bu t we d o n ot ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w Ces sn a’s cro ss -ap pe al
. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW A di st ric t co urt’s fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns de te rm in at io n “ m ay be rev ers ed
on ly whe n t he re h as be ena cl ear abu se of d is cret io n; wher e th e co urt h as co ns id eredall rel ev an t p ub li c an d p riv at e in te res t fa ct or s, an d wh ere i ts ba lanc in g
9of

th es e fac to rs is reas on ab le , it s d eci si on de se rv es subs ta nt ia l d efer en ce.” Pip er Air cr af t Co . v. Reyn o , 45 4 U.S. 2 35 , 25 7, 1 02 S. Ct. 2 52 , 26 6 (1 98 1) . Spe ci fic al ly, whe n app lying ab us e o f di sc ret io n re vi ew, th e Supr em e Co urt h as in st ru ct ed ap pe ll at e co urts no t t o “ lo s[ e] sig htof t hi s ru le , andsubs ti tu te [ th ei r] own jud gm en t fo r th atof the Dis tri ctCo urt.” Id
. , 10 2 S . Ct. at26 6- 67
. IV. DISCUSSI ON Whe n i t m ad e it s m ot io n fo r di sm is sa l o n g ro un ds of fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns , Ces sn a m us t h av e d em on st rat ed“ th at(1) anad equa te alt ern at iv e fo ru m [was ]
av ai labl e, (2 ) th e p ub li c an d p riv at e fac to rs weig h[ ed ] in fav orof d is mis sa l, an d (3 ) th e p la in ti ff[s co ul d] rei ns ta te [th ei r] sui t i n t he alt ern at iv e fo rum witho ut
un du e co nv en ie nc e o r pr ejud ic e.” Se e Leo n v . Mil lo n Ai r, In c. , 25 1 F .3d13 05 , 13 10 -1 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) . The Supr em e Co urt o ut li ne d anu m be r of pri va te an d publ ic in te res t fa ct or s fo r co urts to co ns id er i n a fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns de te rm in at io n. Se e Gul

f Oi l Co rp . v. Gilbe rt , 33 0 U.S. 5 01 , 50 8- 09 , 67 S. Ct. 8 39 , 84 3 (1 94 7) . In Gilbe rt , th e Co urt l is te d t he se fact or s i n d et ai l: An i nt eres t t o b e co ns id ered , andth e o ne li ke ly to b e m os t p res se d, i s th e p riv at e in te res t o f th e li ti ga nt . Im po rta ntco ns id erat io ns are the rel at iv e eas e o f acc es s t o s ou rces of p ro of ; av ai labi li ty of co m

pu ls ory pr oc es s fo r at te nd an ce o f un wil li ng , andth e co stof o bt ai ni ng at te nd an ce o f wil li ng , witne ss es ; p os si bi li ty of vi ew of pre m is es , if vi ew wou ldbe ap pr op ria te to th e act io n; an d a ll ot he r pr act ic al 10pr ob le m s tha t m ak e tr ia l o f a cas e eas y , exp ed it io us an d i ne xp en si ve .

The re m ay

als o b e que st io ns as t o t he en fo rci bi li ty of a jud gm en t i f on e is ob ta in ed . The co urt wi ll weig h re la ti ve advant ag es an d ob st acl es to fai r tr ia l. Itis oft ensai d t ha t the pl ai nt iff m ay no t, b y ch oi ce o f anin co nv en ie ntforum , ‘ ve x,’ ‘ ha ras s,’ or ‘op pr es s’ th e de fen da ntby infl ic ti ng up on hi m ex pe ns e o r tr oubl e n otne ces sa ry to hi s o wn ri gh t t o p ur su e h is rem edy . Butun le ss th e b al an ce i s s tro ng ly in fav or of the de fen dant , th e p la in ti ff's ch oi ce o f fo rum sh ou ldrare ly be di sturbe d. Fact or s o f publ ic in te res t al so ha ve pl ace i n app lying th e do ctrin e. Adm in is tra ti ve di ffi cu lt ie s fo ll ow fo r co urts when li ti ga ti on is pi le d up i n c on ge st edcen te rs in st eadof b ei ng hand le d a t i ts ori gi n. Ju ry du ty is a b ur de n t ha t o ug htno t t o b e im po se d upo n t he pe op le of a co m m un it y whi ch ha s n o re la ti on to th e li ti ga ti on . In ca se s wh ic h to uc h the affa irs of m an y pe rs on s, the re i s re as on for ho ld in g t he tri al in th ei r vi ew an d re ach rathe r th aninrem ot e p art s o f th e co un try whe re the y

canlea rnof i t b y

rep ort o nl y . There is a lo cal in te res t i n ha vi ng lo cal iz edco ntro ve rs ie s d eci de d a t h om e. Ther e is an ap pr op ria te ne ss , to o, i n h av in g t he tri al of adi ve rs it y cas e in a fo ru m th atis at h om e wit h t he st at e la w th atm us t g ov ernth e cas e, rathe r th anhavi ng a co urt i n s om e o th er fo ru m un ta ng le pro bl em s i n c on fli ct of laws , andinlaw fo rei gnto it se lf. Id
. (fo ot no te om it te d)
. The se fact or s ar e n otex haus ti ve or d is po si ti ve , andco urts are fr ee t o b e fle xi bl e in res po nd in g t o c as es as t he y are p res en te d. Si

ga la s , 77 6 F .2dat 1 51 9. A tri al co urt wi ll lo okat t he pri va te in te res ts fir stan d t he n, i f th e b al an ce o f th e pr iv at e in te res ts are fo un d “ to be inequi po is e o r ne ar equi po is e,” i t wi ll

“ de te rm in e whe th er o r no t fa ct or s o f pu bl ic in te res t t ip th e b al an ce i n fa vo r of a
11tri al ina fo rei gn forum .” Se e La Se gu ri da d v . Tra ns

yt ur Lin e , 70 7 F .2d13 04 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 19 83 ). A. Avai la bi li tyan d Adeq ua cy o f the Ita li an For um The de fen da ntbe ars th e b ur de n o f de m on strat in g a n a de qu at e al te rn at iv e fo ru m is av ai labl e. “ Ava il ab il it y an d a de qu acy w arra ntsep arat e co ns id erat io n.” Leo n , 25 1 F .3dat 1 31 1. Ord in ari ly, analt ern at iv e fo ru m is av ai labl e “ whe n t he de fen da ntis ‘ am en ab le to pro ces s’ inth e o th er jur is di ct io n.” Pip er , 45 4 U.S. at 25 5 n .22 , 10 2 S . Ct. at26 5 n .22 (ci ta ti on om it te d) . An al te rn at iv e fo ru m is ad equa te if i t p ro vi de s fo r li ti ga ti on of t he subjec t m at te r of th e d is pu te an d po te nt ia ll y

off ers redres s fo r pl ai nt iff

s’ in juri es . Se e id
. “ An ad equa te forum ne ed
no t b e a p erfe ctfor

um ,” bu t i t m

us t p ro vi de a sa ti sf

act ory rem edy . Sa tzv. McDo nn el l Do ug la s C

or p. , 24 4 F .3d12 79 , 12 83 (11 thCir . 20 01 )
. Inth is cas e, It al y

is anav ai labl e fo ru m

be cau se Ces sn a is wil li ng to subm it to juri sd ic ti on an d i s amenab le to pro ces s t he re. In d ecl ari ng Ita ly an ad equa te fo ru m , th e d is tri ctco urt n ot edIta li anco urts ha ve ad dr es se d s im il ar ca se s an d award edsat is fact ory

rem ed ie s. Bo th pa rti es ag ree I ta li anlaw p ro vi de s t he rul e o f de ci si on reg ard le ss of wh ethe r th e cl ai m s ar e li ti ga te d i n M il anor M ia m i. Altho ug h t he y

di sa gr ee o ve r whe th er Ce ss nawil l b e fo un d l iabl e to th e Eur op ean 12Pl ai nt iff

s u nd er It al ian l aw, Ita li anto rt l aw pr ov id es th e p la in ti ffs with c om pa rab le
rem ed ie s fo r th ei r in

juri es . Se e, e.g ., Membr en o v . Cos ta Cr oc ie re S.P.A. , 42 5 F.3 d 9 32 , 93 7 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (rec og ni zi ng Ita ly as anad equa te forum forto rt cl ai m s) . For t he se reas on s, we fi ndth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n fin di ng Ita ly w as anad equa te alt ern at iv e fo ru m forth e Eur op ean Pla in ti ffs ’ cl ai m s. B. Priva te Int er es t Fa ct or s W it h re ga rdto weig hi ng th e p riv at e in te res ts , a “pl ai nt iff’s cho ic e o f fo ru m sh ou ldrare ly be d is tu rb ed .” Gil be rt , 33 0 U.S. at50 8, 6 7 S . Ct. at84 3. Th e pr es um pt io n i n fa vo r of

th e p la in ti ff’s fo rum

ch oi ce i s s tro ng es t wh enth e p la in ti ff is a Uni te d S ta te s ci ti zen , res id en t, o r co rp or at io n. Se e S ME Racks , Inc . v. Sist ema s Mec an ic os Par a El ectro ni ca , S.A. , 38 2 F .3d10 97 , 11 01 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). A for ei gn pl ai nt iff

’s cho ic e o f fo ru m , ho wev er, i s a we ak er p res um pt io n t ha t
rece iv es les s d efer en ce. Pip er , 45 4 U.S. at25 6, 1 02 S. Ct. at26 6; SME Ra cks , 38 2 F.3 d a t 1 10 1; Ford v . Bro wn , 31 9 F .3d13 02 , 13 07 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ); Leo n , 25 1 F.3 d a t 1 31 5. Th e Eur op ean Pla in ti ffs po in t o uta m ajor it y of t he m are fr om co un tri es ha vi ng bi la te ral tre at ie s wi th th e Uni te d S ta te s t ha t ac co rdth em “ no les s

13fav or ab le ” acc es s t o U.S. co urts to redres s i nju rie s caus edby Am eri can act or s. 2

Thu s, the y

arg ue , th e d is tri ctco urt erredingi vi ng th ei r ch oi ce l es s d efer en ce. We di sa gr ee. The Seco ndCir cu itin Farman fa rma ia n v . Gul

f Oi l Co rp . , 58 8 F .2d88 0 (2 d Ci r. 19 78 ), co nc lu de d afor ei gn er’s ri gh t t o s ue inth e Uni te d S ta te s i s n otof a le ss er m ag ni tu de th ananAm eri can ’s rig htwhena tr eat y ex is ts be twee n t he two
co un tri es gi vi ng a fo rei gn er “ no les s fa vo rab le ” acc es s t o t he othe r co un try’ s co urts . Id
. at 8 82 . Howev er, i n alat er ca se , Pol lux Holdi ng Ltd. v. Cha se Man ha ttan Ban k, 32 9 F .3d64 (2dCir . 20 03 ), th e Sec on d C irc ui t fu rth er ex pl ai ne d th e le ve l o f de fere nc e th atwou ldbe gi ve n t o afor ei gn pl ai nt iff’s cho ic e o f fo ru m :

Eve n a ss um in g t ha t, b y

tre aty , pl ai nt iff

s wer e en ti tl edto acce ss Am eri can co urts on th e sa m e te rm s as Am eri cancit iz en s . . ., ou r cas e la w do es no t s up po rt p la in ti ffs ’ as se rti on th atsu cha tr eat y wou ld requi re tha t the ir c ho ic e o f fo ru m be affo rd edth e sa m e d efer en ce The Eur opean Plaintiffs represe nt 21 Swedish citiz ens, 19 Italian citizens, 19 Danish 2 citizens, 4 Finnish citiz ens, 3 Norw eg ian citizens, 1 Romanian citiz en, and 1 B ritish citiz en. There is also one Italian per sonal injury claimant. Those r epre sentingthe Italian and Da nish dece dents and the I

talian per sonal injury

claimant—39 of the 69 plaintiffs—are entitled by treaty to “no less favorable ” tre atment than an America n national when suingin U.S. courts. See Treaty of F riendship, Commerce and Naviga tion, U.S.-Italy , art. V.4, July 26, 1949, 63 Stat. 2255, 1949 WL37628; Treaty of F riendship, Commerceand Naviga tion, U.S.-Denmark, a

rts. V.1 & XXI I .1, J uly

30, 1961, 12 U.S.T. 908, 1961 WL62672. Eig ht others—re prese nting the Finns, Norw eg ians, and Romanian—a re e ntitled to “free dom of ac cess”or “a cce ss” to U.S. courts. Tre aty

of F riendship, Commerce and Consular Rights, U.S.-Finland, ar t. I , Aug . 10, 1934, 49 Stat. 2659, 1934 W L29046; Treaty of F riendship, Commerce and Consular Rights, U.S.-Norwa

y , art. I , Sept. 15, 1932, 47 Stat. 2135, 1932 W L31050; Agree ment on Trade Relations betwee n the United States and Romania, U .S.-Romania, arts. IV.2 & V.2, Aug . 3, 1975, 26 U.S.T. 2605, 1975 WL165548. 14affo rd edto a U.S. cit iz enbri ng in g s ui t i n h is or h er h om e fo ru m .

Su cha pr op os it io n i m

pe rm is si bl y

co nf la te s ci ti zen sh ip an d co nv en ie nc e . . . . A cou rt c on si de rin g am ot io n fo r di sm is sa l o n t he gro un ds of fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns do es no t as si gn “ ta li sm an ic si gn ifi can ce t o t he ci ti zen sh ip or r es id en ce o f th e p art ie s,” . . . an d t he re i s n o i nf le xi bl e ru le th atpro te ct s U.S. ci ti zen or r es id en t p la in ti ffs fro m ha vi ng th ei r cau se s d is m is se d fo r fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns . . . . [A]ppe ll an ts can no t s uc ces sf ul ly lay cla im to th e d efer en ce owe d a n Am eri can cit iz enor r es id en t s ui ng inhe r ho m e fo ru m . Pl ai nt iff s ar e o nl y en ti tl ed , at b es t, t o t he les se r de fere nc e aff or de d a U.S. cit iz enli vi ng ab ro adwho su es ina U.S. for um . Id
. at 7 3 (c it at io ns om it te d) . This an al y si s m ak es cle ar tha t al th ou gh cit iz en sh ip of te n a ct s as a pr ox y

for co nv en ie nc e in th e fo ru m no n c on ven ie ns an al y si s, the ap pr op ria te in qu iry is i nd eedco nv en ie nc e. Inth is cas e, th en , th e le ss er d efer en ce g iv enby the di stric t co urt t o t he Euro pe anPla in ti ffs ’ ch oi ce o f fo ru m was c on si st en t wi th th e tr eat y ob li ga ti on s o f th e Uni te d S ta te s. J us t as itwou ldbe les s re as on ab le to pre su m e anAm eri can ci ti zen li vi ng ab ro adwou ldch oo se anAm eri can forum forco nv en ie nc e, so to o can we pr es um e a fo rei gn pl ai nt iff do es no t ch oo se to li ti ga te inth e Uni te d S ta te s fo r co nv en ie nc e. Se e Sin oc he m Int ’l Co. v. Ma la ys ia Int ’l S

hi pp in g C or p. , 54 9 U.S. 42 2, 4 30 , 12 7 S . Ct. 1 18 4, 1 19 1 (2 00 7) (“ Whe n t he pl ai nt iff 's c ho ic e is no t i ts ho m e fo ru m , . . . th e p res um pt io n i n t he pl ai nt iff’s fav or‘ ap pl ie s wi th les s fo rce,’

15fo r th e as su m pt io n t ha t the ch os enforum is ap pr op ria te is insu chcas es ‘ le ss reas on ab le .’ ” (quo ti ng Pip er , 45 4 U.S. at25 5- 56 , 10 2 S . Ct. at26 6) ). Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n b y acco rd in g t he Euro pe anPla in ti ffs ’ ch oi ce o f fo ru m les s d efer en ce. Oth er re le va ntpri va te in te res t fa ct or s i nc lu de “ th e rel at iv e eas e o f acc es s t o so ur ces of p ro of

; av ai labi li ty of co m

pu ls ory pro ces s fo r at te nd an ce o f un wil li ng , an d t he co stof o bt ai ni ng att en da nc e o f wil li ng , witne ss ; . . . andall ot he r pr act ic al pr ob le m s t ha t m ak e tr ia l o f a cas e eas y , exp ed it io us an d i ne xp en si ve .” Gil be rt , 33 0 U.S. at50 8, 6 7 S . Ct. at84 3. Th e lo cat io n o f m uc h o f th e ev id en ce o f th is
cas e is inIta ly. Altho ug h s om e ev id en ce h as alr eady be enga th eredan d t he cras h rep orts ha ve be entra ns la te d, the di st ric t co urt p oi nt edou t tha t Ce ss nadi sp ut es th e to rt e le m en t o f cau sa ti onba se d o n i nt erv en in g fa ct or s, the ev id en ce o f whi chcan on ly be o bt ai ne d fr om

Ita li anwitne ss es . Se e Ford , 31 9 F .3dat 1 30 8 (“ Perh ap s t he
m os t i m po rtant‘ pr iv at e in te res t’ of the li ti ga nt s i s ac ces s t o e vi de nc e.”); se e a ls o Magni n v. Tel ed

yn e Co nt in en ta l Mo to rs , 91 F.3d14 24 , 14 30 n.2 (11 th Cir . 19 96 ) (reb uf fin g t he co nt en ti on th ata Fren chacci de ntrep ort was anad equa te subs ti tu te fo r de fen da nt ’s des ire to pre se ntli ve Fren chwitne ss es to est ab li sh th e cau se of a fo rei gnair

pl an e cra sh ). The d is tri ctco urt al so fou ndth ere wer e “pr act ic al pr ob le m s” th atco m

pl ic at edtrying th e cas e in th e Uni te d S ta te s, i nc lu di ng

16di ffer in g l iabi li ty iss ue s an d d am ag es am on g t he Pla in ti ffs an d t he factth atso m e

Pl ai nt iff s h av e al read y

li ti ga te d a ndco nt in ue to li ti ga te a si m il ar s ui t i n It al y co nc ern in g t he cras h. C. Pub li c In te rest

Fact or s Afte r di sc us si ng th e p riv at e in te res ts an d h av in g fo un d t he m inor n ear equi po is e, th e d is tri ctco urt an al y zedth e p ub li c in te res t fa ct or s wei gh in g i n fa vo r of di sm is sa l o f th e Eur op ean Pla in ti ffs ’ cas e. Publ ic in te res t fa ct or s i nc lu de each fo ru m ’s in te res t i n h eari ng th e cas e, th e adm in is tra ti ve burd en s p la cedon th e Co urt i n h eari ng th e cas e, an d the ne edto ap pl y for ei gn law. Se e Gilbe rt , 33 0 U.S. at50 8- 09 , 67 S. Ct. at84 3. Th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d tha t It al y ha s a s tro ng in te res t in res ol vi ng th is cas e, es pe ci al ly becau se th e tr ag ic ev en t o ccu rredon Ita li anlan d. The co urt ex pr es se d c on cern th atev al ua ti ng li ab il it y an d d am ag es is su es as t o each of t he se Euro pe anPla in ti ffs wou ldpl ace ahe av y burd enon it s l im it ed
res ou rces . Fin al ly, aft er co nduc ti ng a two -d ay Ita li anlaw h eari ng , th e co urt
co nc lu de d app li cat io n o f It al ia n l aw to th e num ero us is su es inth is cas e wei gh edin fav orof d is m is sa l. Se e Sigalas , 77 6 F .2dat 1 51 9 (“ The ne edto res ol ve an d app ly fo rei gnlaw s ho ul d ‘po in t the tri al co urt t owa rd s d is m is sa l.’” (qu ot in g Pip er , 45 4 U.S. at 2 60 , 10 2 S . Ct. 2 52 )).

17Inth e tr ia l co urt’s an al y si s, the se publ ic in te res t fa ct or s t ip pe d the ba la nc e

in fav orof atri al inIta ly for the Euro pe anPla in ti ffs ’ cas e. The d is tri ctco urt
en ga ge d i n ath or ou gh , reas on ab le an al y si s o f th e rel ev an t p riv at e an d p ub li c in te res t fa ct or s, an d i t d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n i n fi nd in g the fact or s wei gh edin fav orof d is m is sa l o f th e Eur op ean Pla in ti ffs
. D. Con di ti on s o

f the Dis mis sa l W e m od ify the di sm is sa l o rd er t o re qu ire Ces sn a to subm itto th e juri sd ic ti on of t he Ita li anco urts an d wai ve th e st atut e o f li m it at io ns . Se e 28 U.S.C. § 2 10 6 (g iv in g app el la te co urts th e au th or it y to m od ify). W e furth er
m od ify the di sm is sa l o rd er t o p ro vi de th atan y cas e d is m is se d p ur su an t t o t he di st ric t co urt’s o rd er m ay be rei ns ta te d i n t he ev en t tha t juris di ct io n t o e nt ert ai n su cha cas e is reject edby a fin al de ci si on of aco urt i n It al y . W e n ot e th at
co nd it io ni ng th e d is m is sa l d oe s n otde st ro y fin al ity , no r le av e th e cas e p en di ng in th e d is tri ctco urt. Se e Leo n , 25 1 F .3dat 1 31 6; Si ga la s , 77 6 F .2dat 1 51 5- 16
. V. CONCLUSION Ech oi ng th e d is tri ctjud ge ’s sen ti m en ts , we are ex tre m el y sym pa th et ic to th os e aff ect edby thi s t rag ic air

pl an e cra sh . Sti ll , ou r sym pa th y forth e v ic ti m s an d th ei r fam il ie s ca nn otalt er o urco nc lu si on th atth e d is tri ctco urt d idno t ab us e it s di sc ret io n i n d is mis si ng th e Eur op ean Pla in ti ffs on th e g ro un ds of fo ru m no n
18co nv en ie ns . Accor di ng ly, th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er i s m od ifi edas p ro vi de d i n t hi s

op in io n a nd , as m od ifi ed , is affi rm ed
. AFFIRMED I N PART, DISMI SSED I N PART.

19