Opinion ID: 1541345
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The private interest factors.

Text: Because all of the plaintiffs and defendants in Eric T. are non-residents of the District, Judge Keary did not abuse her discretion in drawing the obvious conclusion that Maryland was a superior forum to the District in terms of the conventional private interest factors, i.e. the convenience of the parties, the relative ease of access to evidence, and related considerations. To be sure, Gaithersburg is not a great distance from the District, and we are dealing with a relatively compact and closely interrelated metropolitan area. Rose, supra, 583 A.2d at 159 n. 7 (citation omitted); see also Auerbach v. Frank, 685 A.2d 404, 411 (D.C.1996); Neale v. Arshad, 683 A.2d 160, 163 (D.C.1996). Nevertheless, Judge Keary correctly identified the convenience factors and evaluated them in a rational manner. Under our standard of review, that was sufficient. Smith, supra, 684 A.2d at 1287. Judge Keary also addressed, with commendable restraint and moderation, the question whether the plaintiffs had selected the District as a forum in order to avoid Maryland's tort reform restrictions. One of the purposes of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is to avoid forum-shopping. Id. at 160. [D]ismissal may be warranted where a plaintiff chooses a particular forum, not because it is convenient, but solely in order to harass the defendant or take advantage of favorable law. Piper Aircraft Co., supra, 454 U.S. at 249 n. 15. Judge Keary's assessment of this factor  noting the realistic possibility that it is the prospect of a significantly larger recovery that brings plaintiffs here, Rose, supra, 583 A.2d at 159-60 n. 5 (quoting trial judge's opinion)  was reasonable, and we will not second-guess her. With respect to the issue of forum non conveniens, Eric T. obviously presents a somewhat stronger case for the plaintiff than the other cases before us do. On one occasion, Eric T. was hospitalized in the District. One of the defendants in his case  PIW  is located in this jurisdiction. In contrast, there was neither a District of Columbia hospitalization nor a defendant currently practicing in the District in Hood, Hitchens, Schoeny, or Kirk. Moreover, several of the plaintiffs in the other appeals live much further from Washington, D.C. than Eric T. does, [10] and the treatment facilities involved in some of those appeals are located at some distance from the District. [11] Accordingly, our assessment of the private interest factors in Eric T. applies a fortiori to the other four cases. [12]