Opinion ID: 548383
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 47 Before this Court is the Motion of Defendant, Klaveness Ship Lines, to Dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff, Rosauro Quintero, does not oppose this Motion, but asks the Court to refrain from making a choice of law determination. Pursuant to this Court's Minute Entry of April 3, 1987, this court entered judgment in favor of Defendants dismissing the Plaintiff's claims on the basis of forum non conveniens. The Fifth Circuit vacated this court's judgment and remanded the case, stating that the District Court did not have the advantage of In Re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, Louisiana, 821 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir.1987), vacated and remanded on other grounds sub. nom. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Lopez, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 1928, 104 L.Ed.2d 400 (1989), modified in part, aff'd. in part on remand, 883 F.2d 17 (5th Cir.1989). Rosauro Quintero v. Klaveness Ship Lines, et al, No. 88-3350 slip op. (5th Cir. January 13, 1989) (unpublished). The Fifth Circuit's en banc decision in Air Crash sets out in detail the findings a district court must make when deciding a motion for dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens. This court has reviewed all the documents and memoranda submitted by the parties on the issue of forum non conveniens and now rules on this Motion.II. DISCUSSION 48 Since the Fifth Circuit affirmed its decision on remand in Air Crash regarding forum non conveniens, this court will apply the criterion set forth in that decision. In deciding a motion to dismiss a Plaintiff's case on the basis of forum non conveniens, a federal court sitting in diversity must apply the federal law of forum non conveniens, and not the forum's law. Air Crash, 821 F.2d at 1159. The test for deciding a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens is the same in all cases regardless of their jurisdictional basis or subject matter. Id. at 1163, relying on Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255, 102 S.Ct. 252, 265, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981). The Fifth Circuit has specifically overruled Jones Act and general maritime cases which have, in the past, utilized a modified analysis on forum non conveniens issues. Id. at 1163, n. 25. 49 The ultimate inquiry in deciding the issue of forum non conveniens is determining  'where trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.'  Id. at 1162 (quoting Koster v. American Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 527, 67 S.Ct. 828, 833, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947)). The determination of what forum is most convenient includes several inquiries. First, the district court must 50 decide whether an available and adequate forum exists. This is a two-part inquiry: availability and adequacy. A foreign forum is available when the entire case and all parties can come within the jurisdiction of that forum.... A foreign forum is adequate when the parties will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly, ... even though they may not enjoy the same benefits as they might receive in an American court. 51 Air Crash, 821 F.2d at 1165 (emphasis added). 52 If the court determines that there is an available and adequate forum, then the court must consider the private interest factors. In considering these factors, the court should give deference to the Plaintiff's initial choice of forum. Id. at 1165. A foreign plaintiff's selection of an American forum deserves less deference then an American citizen's selection of her or his home forum. Id. at 1164. The court, however, cannot grant a dismissal under forum non conveniens simply because the Plaintiff is a foreigner. Id. at 1164, n. 26. 53 The private factors that must be considered are: 54 (1) Relative ease of access to sources of proof; 55 (2) Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the costs of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; 56 (3) Probability of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; 57 (4) The enforceability of a judgment if one is obtained; and 58 (5) All other practical problems that make a trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. 59 Id. at 1162. 60 After examining the private interest factors, the court must then proceed to determine whether the public interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal. 821 F.2d at 1165. The public interest factors to be considered are: 61 (1) Administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; 62 (2) The local interest in having localized controveries resolved at home; 63 (3) The interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is familiar with the law that must govern the action; 64 (4) The avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflicts of law, or in application of foreign law; and, 65 (5) The unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. 66 Id. at 1162-63. 67 After determining whether there is an available and adequate forum, and after considering the private and public interests involved, the court must ensure that the Plaintiff can bring the suit in an alternative forum and that if the defendant obstructs such reinstatement in the alternative forum that the plaintiff may return to the American forum. Id. at 1166. Finally, the court must set out its findings in writing or clearly state them in the record. Id. 68 The Plaintiff argues that a forum non conveniens analysis is not necessary because Plaintiff has stipulated to the dismissal. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, p. 3. The Fifth Circuit, however, has stated that a summary determination of a motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens without either written or oral explanation is a clear abuse of discretion. 821 F.2d at 1166. Moreover, a district court abuses its discretion if it fails to address and balance the relevant principles and factors of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Id. 69