IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

KAREN A. LYNCH, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

HILTON WORLDWIDE, INC., et

al.,

 Defendants.

HON. JEROME B. SIMANDLE

Civil No. 11-1362 (JBS/AMD)

OPINION

APPEARANCES:

Gary Frederick Piserchia

PARKER, MCCAY & CRISCUOLO, PA

Three Greentree Centre

7001 Lincoln Drive West

PO Box 974 

Marlton, NJ 08053

Attorney for Plaintiffs Kathleen A. Lynch and James J. Lynch

Michael T. Pidgeon, Esq.

PEPPER HAMILTON LLP

18th and Arch Streets

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Attorney for Defendant Hilton Worldwide, Inc.

SIMANDLE, District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Hilton

Worldwide, Inc.'s ("Defendant") motion to dismiss Plaintiffs

Kathleen A. Lynch and James J. Lynch's complaint [Docket Item 3.] 

The Defendant argues that the Plaintiffs' complaint should be

dismissed for failure to state a claim or in the alternative, the

complaint should be dismissed for forum non conveniens. For the

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 1 of 21 PageID: 118
reasons expressed below, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff's

complaint based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The

Court will not address the sufficiency of Plaintiffs' complaint

as the Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state claim

is rendered moot. 

II. BACKGROUND

The instant action is a personal injury suit arising from

Plaintiff Kathleen Lynch slipping and falling while using the

bathtub/shower in her room at the Hilton London Euston Hotel, in

London, United Kingdom ("London Hotel"). The London Hotel is

allegedly owned and operated by the Defendant; however, the

Defendant disputes this allegation of Plaintiff's complaint.1

The complaint alleges that on or about April 13, 2009,

Plaintiff Kathleen Lynch was staying at the Hilton London Euston

Hotel in London, United Kingdom, as a hotel guest in Room 130.

(Comp. ¶ 11.) Room 130 had a bathroom with a bathtub with high

sides, no flat standing surface, no appropriate slip protection

and no railing/handrails in the bath area. (Comp. ¶ 12.) As a

result, the Plaintiff Kathleen Lynch slipped and fell while

attempting to use the bathtub/shower in Room 130 (Comp. ¶ 14) and

sustained injuries (Comp. ¶ 19). 

 As the Court is deciding the present motion upon the 1

doctrine of forum-non conveniens, the issue of whether the

Plaintiff has pled sufficient facts alleging Defendant's

ownership of the London Hotel is irrelevant to this opinion and

will not be decided by the Court. 

2

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 2 of 21 PageID: 119
The Plaintiff Kathleen Lynch, along with her husband,

Plaintiff James Lynch, brought the instant action against the

Defendant alleging negligence/premises liability, loss of

consortium and punitive damages. This case was initially filed

in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Burlington County Vicinage. 

The Defendant then removed the action to the District of New

Jersey. [Docket Item 1].

After the case was removed, the Defendant filed a motion to

dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. [Docket Item 3.] The

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed

for failure to state claim because the Plaintiffs have not

alleged sufficient facts under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 to present a

plausible basis for relief. Specifically, the Defendant contends

that the Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts that the Defendant

owed a duty to the Plaintiffs or that the Defendant owns,

operates or holds any possessory rights over the London Hotel.

In the alternative, the Defendant argues that the

Plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed for forum non

conveniens because the United Kingdom is a more appropriate forum

that will best serve the convenience of the witnesses and parties

and advance the interests of justice.

Plaintiffs oppose Defendant's motion to dismiss. The

Plaintiffs first maintain that its complaint satisfies the

pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 and states a claim

3

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 3 of 21 PageID: 120
upon which relief can be granted. Second, the Plaintiffs argue

that New Jersey is a proper forum for this litigation. 

Initially, the Plaintiffs state that the Defendant has not met

its burden showing that the United Kingdom is an adequate

alternative forum. The Plaintiffs contend that they are

residents of New Jersey and the choice of their home forum should

be given deference. The Plaintiffs also argue that their medical

providers are all located in New Jersey and the case would

generate witness problems whether tried in this forum or the

United Kingdom. The Plaintiffs admit that the United Kingdom has

an interest in this dispute; however, the Plaintiffs argue that

the balance of private and public interests favor proceeding in

New Jersey. 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

In determining whether to dismiss a case based upon forum

non conveniens, the court must address (1) the availability of an

adequate alternate forum; (2) the degree of deference to be

accorded to the plaintiff's choice of forum; and (3) the balance

of private and public interest factors with the degree of

deference accorded the plaintiff's choice of forum. See Tech.

Dev. Co. v. Onischenko, 174 Fed. Appx. 117, 120 (3d Cir. 2006).

“The defendant bears the burden of persuasion as to all elements

of the forum non conveniens analysis.” Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft

4

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 4 of 21 PageID: 121
Co., 932 F.2d 170, 180 (3d Cir. 1991) (internal citations

omitted). “The common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens ‘has

continuing application [in federal courts] only in cases where

the alternative forum is abroad,’ and perhaps in rare instances

where a state or territorial court serves litigational

convenience best.” Sinochem Intern. Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Intern.

Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430 (2007) (citations omitted)

(emphasis added). 

B. Availability of Adequate Alternative Forum

In dismissing a case based on the doctrine of forum non

conveniens, the first requirement is the existence of an adequate

alternative forum. A forum is considered an adequate alternative

if two conditions are met. First, the Defendant must be

amendable to process in the alternate forum. Second, there must

be a cause of action in the alternative forum which provides the 

plaintiff a redress for his injury. Kroger, Inc. v. O'Donnell,

No. 07-3091, 2007 W.L. 3232586 at *3 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2007).

In this case, the Defendant maintains that the United

Kingdom is an adequate alternative forum. The Defendant Hilton

Worldwide, Inc. is amenable to process in the United Kingdom. 

(Ex. A. to Pl.'s Reply Br., Decl. of Owen Wilcox at ¶ 3.) This

is not disputed by the Plaintiff and is certified to in the

Declaration of Owen Wilcox, who is a vice president of the

Defendant corporation. Since Defendant Hilton Worldwide Inc. is

5

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 5 of 21 PageID: 122
the only named Defendant in this action, the first requirement 2

of an adequate alternative forum is met. 

In regards to the second element, there are two causes of

action which would provide the Plaintiffs with redress available

in the United Kingdom. Based on the facts alleged in the

Complaint, the Plaintiffs could bring suit for negligence tort

liability as well as statutory liability under the Occupiers'

Liability Act of 1957 c. 31 in the United Kingdom. In fact, a

recent case was decided in the United Kingdom addressing both

these causes of action involving facts very similar to present

circumstances. See Murdock v. Scarisbrick Group Limited, (2011)

EWHC 220 (Q.B.). 

However, "if the statute of limitations has expired in the

alternative forum, the forum is not available, and the motion to

dismiss based on forum non conveniens would not be appropriate."

MSC Mediterranean Shipping Co. v. Koninklijke Boskalis

Westminster NV, 569 F.3d 189, 202 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Alternatively, a defendant moving for dismissal pursuant to the

doctrine of forum non conveniens can "explicitly concede[d] that

it is subject to the jurisdiction of [the foreign] courts or

waive any jurisdictional or other legal obstructions that may

impede plaintiffs' case there." D'Elia v. Grand Caribbean Co.,

 The Plaintiffs also name fictional defendants John Doe I-X 2

and ABC Company I-X in their complaint.

6

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 6 of 21 PageID: 123
Ltd., No. 09-1707, 2010 WL 1372027 at *7 (D.N.J. March 30, 2010). 

By waiving the statute of limitations defense, a defendant can

satisfy its burden of proof regarding an adequate alternative

forum.

In support of its motion to dismiss for forum non

conveniens, the Defendant submitted the certification of Owen

Wilcox, Vice President and Senior Counsel for Hilton, which

declared that "Hilton is amenable to legal process in the United

Kingdom for the Plaintiffs' case." (Ex. A. to Pl.'s Reply Br.,

Decl. of Owen Wilcox at ¶ 3.) The Court interprets this

declaration as a waiver of any jurisdictional or other legal

obstructions that may impede the Plaintiffs' case in the United

Kingdom and the Defendant is deemed to have waived any statute of

limitations defense available in the new forum. 

3

Therefore, the Court finds that the United Kingdom is an

adequate alternative forum for Plaintiffs' claims. The Defendant

is amenable to process in the alternate forum and there are

causes of action in the alternative forum which provide the

Plaintiffs a redress for their injury. 

C. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

The plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given great

 It appears that this suit would be timely if brought in 3

the United Kingdom which as a three year limitations period for

personal injury under the Limitations Act of 1980 (1980 c. 58). 

Since the injury occurred in April, 2009, the limitation period

does not expire until April, 2012.

7

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 7 of 21 PageID: 124
deference by the Court. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S.

235, 266 (1981). When the plaintiff sues in her home forum, this

choice is given even greater deference. Koster v. (American)

Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 831-832 (1947). 

However, a plaintiff's choice to sue in her home forum is not

dispositive. 

Citizens or residents deserve somewhat more deference

than foreign plaintiffs, but dismissal should not be

automatically barred when a plaintiff has filed suit in

his home forum. As always, if the balance of

conveniences suggests that trial in the chosen forum

would be unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or

the court, dismissal is proper.

Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 256 n.23. In particular, "if the

operative facts giving rise to the complaint occurred outside of

the chosen forum, courts reduce the deference owed to a

plaintiff's choice of forum." Colantonio v. Hilton Int'l Co.,

No. 03-1833, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15991 at **15 (August 13, 2004

and Axxa Commerce, LLP v. Digital Realty Trust, L.P., No. 09-653,

2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94103 at *11 (D.N.J. October 8, 2009). and

Vlasic v. Wyndham Int'l, 451 F. Supp. 2d 1005, 1009, 1012 (C.D.

Ill. 2006). 

In this case, the Plaintiffs are New Jersey residents and

have chosen to sue in their home forum. This choice is generally

accorded great deference by the Court. However, New Jersey has

little connection with the pertinent facts giving rise to this

law suit. The Plaintiffs' case centers on a slip and fall which

8

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 8 of 21 PageID: 125
happened in a London hotel, the allegedly unsafe condition of a

London bathtub and the alleged negligence of the London hotel

employees. All of the facts giving rise to the Plaintiffs'

complaint occurred in London.

Therefore, while the Plaintiffs have sued in their home

forum and this choice is given deference by the Court, this

choice is not dispositive and the Court's deference is somewhat

diminished since the operative facts giving rise to the action

occurred outside of New Jersey. 

D. Balancing Private and Public Factors

In deciding a motion to dismiss based upon the doctrine of

forum non conveniens, a court must balance several public and

private factors. A court must determine if the factors weigh in

favor of dismissal and outweigh the deference given to the

plaintiff's choice of forum. Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at

255. However, dismissal is not appropriate "where the balance of

the private factors was at equipoise or tipped toward dismissal."

The Technology Development Company, Ltd. v. Onishenko, 174 Fed.

Appx. 117, 123 (3d. Cir. 2006). Rather, the defendant has the

burden to prove that the plaintiff's choice of forum is

"vexatious and oppressive to all [defendants] out of all

proportion to [plaintiff's] convenience." Piper Aircraft Co., 454

U.S. at 241. The Third Circuit has held that the balancing of

these factors is "essentially qualitative, not quantitative."

9

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 9 of 21 PageID: 126
Lacey v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 932 F.2d 170, 182 (3d Cir. 1991). 

1. Private Factors

The Court must consider several private factors in

determining whether to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non

conveniens. These factors include "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." Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241 n.6 (citing

Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947).

 a. Relative Ease and Access to Sources of Proof

This premises liability action involves a slip and fall that

occurred at the Hilton London Euston Hotel in London, United

Kingdom. Therefore, any sources of proof in this case are

located in London with the exception of the portion of Plaintiff

Kathleen Lynch's medical treatment which occurred in and around

New Jersey. 

In addition, the Plaintiffs allege, and the Defendant

strongly contests, that the Defendant owned, managed and/or

operated the Hilton London Euston Hotel. The Plaintiffs do not

point to any management or operation agreement. Rather, the

Plaintiffs support their allegation with circumstantial evidence

10

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 10 of 21 PageID: 127
including correspondence from the London Hotel which purportedly

states that the Defendant manages the London Hotel, the

Defendant's website, employees of the London Hotel which use

Hilton on their email addresses and business cards, and logos of

the Defendant which appear throughout the London Hotel. (Pl.

Opp'n. Br. at 10.)

All of the operative facts concerning the Defendant's

liability are located in the United Kingdom. The premises where

the Plaintiff was injured is in London. The books and records

relating to any knowledge of prior accidents and remedial

measures are located in the United Kingdom. The circumstantial

evidence Plaintiff argues will substantiate Defendant's liability

for actions of the Hilton London Euston Hotel is in London. The

only witnesses not in London are witnesses which support

Plaintiff's claim for damages. However, the issue of damages is

only relevant if liability is proved. 

Therefore, this factor weighs strongly in favor of

dismissal.

b. Availability of Compulsory Process for 

 Attendance of Unwilling Witnesses, and the Cost 

 of Obtaining Attendance of Willing Witnesses

The Defendant has not provided the Court with a list of

witnesses it intends to call. Instead the Defendant generally

states that "all of the relevant evidence and witnesses, with the

exception of the Plaintiffs and any potential medical experts,

11

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 11 of 21 PageID: 128
are located in the United Kingdom." (Def.'s Br. at 8.) The

Defendant also states that this Court does not have the power to

compel witnesses located in the United Kingdom to travel to this

forum to testify at trial. However, the Defendant has not cited

any law in support of this argument and has not provided the

Court with a list of witnesses from the United Kingdom that are

essential to this action. If these witnesses are London Hotel

personnel, the Defendant does not explain why it cannot procure

the testimony of these employees if needed for a trial in New

Jersey.

As noted by the Court supra in Part III A, the "defendant

bears the burden of persuasion as to all elements of the forum

non conveniens analysis.” Lacey, 932 at 180. 

Since the Defendant has not brought forth any list of

witnesses or facts to support its general allegations, the

Defendant has not carried its burden as to this factor.

c. Possibility of Viewing the Premises

The Defendant argues and the Court agrees that a view and

examination of the accident scene at the London Hotel would be

appropriate as this is a negligence case based on the condition

of a bathtub/shower. Similarly, London is the only place where

expert witnesses could inspect the allegedly negligent

conditions. Therefore, this factor balances in favor of the

Defendant since the premises are located in London.

12

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 12 of 21 PageID: 129
d. Practical Problems that make Trial of a Case

 Easy, Expeditious and Inexpensive

In this case, the Plaintiff has brought suit only against

Defendant Hilton Worldwide, Inc. The Plaintiff has not brought

suit against the London Hotel. It is unclear at this time

whether the London Hotel is a necessary party and whether the

London Hotel would be subject to jurisdiction in this forum. The

Defendant has not alleged any facts or law with regard to this

issue.

If the London Hotel was a necessary party and not subject to

personal jurisdiction in this forum, that would be a significant

factor to consider under this prong of the analysis. The Third

Circuit has held that a court should not "minimize the importance

of getting all concerned parties under one judicial roof." Lacey,

932 F.2d at 190. However, as the Defendant bears the burden of

proof and the Defendant has not made a showing with regard to

this factor, the Court will not give any weight to this factor.

2. Public Factors

The Court must also consider specific public factors in

determining whether to dismiss an action based on the doctrine of

forum non conveniens. These factors include "the administrative

difficulties flowing from court congestion; the 'local interest

in having localized controversies 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

13

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 13 of 21 PageID: 130
unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application

of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an

unrelated forum with jury duty." Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at

241 n.6 (citing Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 509 (1947).

a. Administrative Difficulties flowing from court

 congestion

This factor concerning the relative court congestion between

this District and the courts in the United Kingdom was not raised

by the Defendant as relevant to the instant motion. Therefore,

the Court will not give any weight to this factor.

b. Local Interest in Having Localized

 Controversies Decided at Home

In this case, the United Kingdom has the greater interest in

this controversy. The facts giving rise to the Plaintiffs'

complaint all occurred in London. The primary connection that

New Jersey has to the instant dispute is that Plaintiffs reside

here and the Plaintiff Kathleen Lynch received subsequent medical

treatment here. In addition, the Plaintiffs did make hotel

reservations in New Jersey and consequently began their

relationship with the London Hotel in New Jersey.

However, the United Kingdom's interest in this litigation

outweighs New Jersey's interest. The heart of this action is the

safety of a facility located in the United Kingdom. Therefore,

the United Kingdom has the stronger interest in hearing this

dispute. This factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

14

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 14 of 21 PageID: 131
c. 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 and the avoidance

 of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws or

 in the application of foreign law

In this case, the Defendant states that "the claims at issue

involve the application of foreign tort law and/or conflict of

law principles, and there is no reason to burden this Court with

learning foreign law to resolve claims that arose in the United

Kingdom." (Def.'s Br. at 10.) However, the Defendant does not

provide any analysis of this factor and has not come forward with

any discussion of the applicable law in the United Kingdom. 

Indeed, the Defendant argues its motion to dismiss based on

principles of New Jersey law. Defendant has the burden of

bringing forth the applicable law in the United Kingdom and

establishing that this law will govern the instant action instead

of New Jersey law. Lacey, 932 F.2d at 180.

However, despite the Defendant's failure to meet its burden

of proof, the Court feels it important to discuss the choice of

law analysis in this case. In a diversity case filed in New

Jersey, New Jersey choice of law rules govern. See Lebegern v.

Forman, 471 F.3d 424, 428 (3d Cir. 2006). In tort cases, New

Jersey follows the "most significant relationship" test adopted

in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws as well as the

Restatement's default rule that the location of the injury in

tort cases determines the law to be applied unless some other

15

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 15 of 21 PageID: 132
location has a more significant relationship. P.V. ex rel. T.V.

v. Camp Jaycee, 962 A.2d 453, 460 (N.J. 2008); Restatement

(Second) of Conflict of Laws § 146 (1971).

For tort claims, the Restatement provides that the case will

be "determined by the local law of the state which, with respect

to that issue, has the most significant relationship to the

occurrence and the parties under the principles stated in § 6." §

145. The default rule contained in § 146 of the Restatement

provides that "the local law of the state where the injury

occurred determines the rights and liabilities of the parties,

unless, with respect to the particular issue, some other state

has a more significant relationship under the principles stated

in § 6 to the occurrence and the parties." § 146; Camp Jaycee,

962 A.2d at 461. 

Section 6 of the Restatement lists several factors relevant

to the choice of law analysis that when "reduced to their essence

. . . are: (1) the interests of interstate comity; (2) the

interests of the parties; (3) the interests underlying the field

of tort law; (4) the interests of judicial administration; and

(5) the competing interests of the states." Camp Jaycee, 962

A.2d at 463 (internal quotation and citations omitted); § 6.

Prior to engaging in a choice of law analysis, the Court

must first determine that the laws at issue are in conflict. 

Camp Jaycee, 962 A.2d at 460. "It is only after a determination

16

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 16 of 21 PageID: 133
is made that there is indeed an actual conflict between the laws

of the particular jurisdictions that the interests of the

respective jurisdictions are analyzed." Grossman v. Club Med

Sales, 273 N.J. Super. 42, 49 (App. Div. 1994) (citations

ommitted).

In this case, under New Jersey law, "the owner or operator

of a hotel, is not an insurer of the safety of his guests. He is,

however, required to exercise ordinary care to render the

premises reasonably safe for their use." Johnson v. Kolibas, 75

N.J. Super. 56, 64 (App. Div. 1962). See also Grossman v. Club

Med Sales, 273 N.J. Super. 42 (App. Div. 1994). In the United

Kingdom, a hotel owner is under a statutory duty "to take such

care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see

that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises

for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the

occupier to be there." Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 c. 31 §

2(2). 

A comparison of this law shows that there is no conflict

between the duty imposed on a hotel owner in the United Kingdom

and New Jersey. Both jurisdictions impose a similar duty on

hotel owners with respect to their guests. Absent an actual

conflict, New Jersey law would apply to issues of the instant

case, if the case were to remain in this forum.

Therefore, the Court will not give any weight to this factor

17

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 17 of 21 PageID: 134
as the Defendant has not met his burden of proof. However, if

the Court were to give weight to this factor, it would not weigh

in favor of dismissal.

d. Unfairness of burdening citizens in an

 unrelated forum with jury duty

The Defendant argues that a New Jersey jury should not be

burdened with the trial of a matter that has no relationship to

New Jersey, aside from the Plaintiffs' residence. The Plaintiffs

maintain that a New Jersey jury would have a relationship to this

cause of action because it involves an injury to a New Jersey

resident.

The Court finds that the United Kingdom has a stronger

interest in the outcome of this litigation. While the Plaintiffs

are New Jersey residents, the operative facts of the complaint

and the injury occurred in the United Kingdom. In addition, the

main issue in this case is the safety of a facility in London and

the conduct of Plaintiff in London which Defendant alleges

contributed to the accident. A New Jersey jury has little to no

relationship to the operative facts of this case whereas a jury

in the United Kingdom has a strong interest in the safety of its

facilities.

Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of dismissal.

3. Balance of the Factors Favor Dismissal

The Third Circuit has held that the balancing of these

factors is "essentially qualitative, not quantitative." Lacey v.

18

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 18 of 21 PageID: 135
Cessna Aircraft Co., 932 F.2d at 182. After analyzing the

applicable private and public factors, the Court finds that the

factors weigh heavily in favor of dismissal. The Defendant has

met its burden to show that the plaintiff's choice of forum is

"vexatious and oppressive . . . out of all proportion to

[plaintiff's] convenience." Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241. 

The private factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissal. 

The sources of evidence and witnesses to prove Defendant's

liability are located in the United Kingdom. The premises at

issue is located in the United Kingdom. The only witnesses

located in New Jersey pertain to Plaintiff's medical treatment

which is only relevant after liability is proved. Moreover, the

London Hotel could readily be joined as a party if the litigation

is heard in the United Kingdom and "it would be far better to try

all of the issues surrounding this case with all of the possible

liable parties under one roof." Colantonio, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

15991 at *36. 

The public factors are either neutral or weigh strongly in

favor of dismissal. The United Kingdom has the stronger interest

in this case since the action centers around the safety of a

United Kingdom facility. By contrast, New Jersey's interest in

this action is tangential and exists only because the Plaintiffs

happen to be New Jersey residents. In addition, a jury in the

United Kingdom would have a deeper interest in this litigation as

19

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 19 of 21 PageID: 136
it involves the safety of a premises in London. 

Further, while Plaintiffs' choice to sue in their home forum

is accorded deference, the deference given is somewhat diminished

as the operative facts giving rise to the Plaintiffs' complaint

occurred outside of New Jersey. 

Therefore, the Court finds the balance of the private and

public factors weigh strongly in favor of dismissal and outweigh

Plaintiff's choice of forum.

IV. CONCLUSION

The Defendant has met its burden of proof in showing the

Plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed based upon the doctrine

of forum non conveniens. The United Kingdom is an adequate

available forum. The Plaintiff's choice of forum, while given

deference, the deference given is somewhat diminished because all

operative facts giving rise to the Plaintiff's allegations of

liability occurred in the United Kingdom. Finally, the

qualitative balance of the private and public factors weighs

strongly in favor of dismissal and it would be vexatious and

oppressive to the Defendant to maintain the litigation in New

Jersey out of all proportion to the Plaintiff's convenience.

Therefore, this case should be dismissed based upon the

doctrine of forum non conveniens.

20

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 20 of 21 PageID: 137
The accompanying Order will be entered.

October 31, 2011 s/ Jerome B. Simandle 

Date JEROME B. SIMANDLE

United States District Judge

21

Case 1:11-cv-01362-JBS-AMD Document 9 Filed 10/31/11 Page 21 of 21 PageID: 138