Opinion ID: 6985054
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Home Forum under Roster

Text: In 1947, the Supreme Court decided the companion cases Roster, 330 U.S. 518, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947), and Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). In these two cases, the Court laid out the approach to forum non conveniens that is still followed in federal courts today. 2 See, e.g., Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981); Scottish Air Int’l, 81 F.3d at 1232. In Gilbert, which involved a plaintiff who brought suit outside his home forum, see 330 U.S. at 502, 67 S.Ct. 839, the Court set forth a balancing test of private and public interests to guide courts’ discretion in determining whether a more convenient forum exists. See id. at 508-09, 67 S.Ct. 839. While Gilbert acknowledged generally that “the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed,” id. at 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, Koster, which involved a plaintiff who had chosen to sue in his home forum, more explicitly stated that: Where there are only two parties to a dispute, there is good reason why it should be tried in the plaintiffs home forum if that has been his choice. He should not be deprived of the presumed advantages of his home jurisdiction except upon a clear showing of facts which either (1) establish such oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant as to be out of all proportion to plaintiffs convenience, which may be shown to be slight or nonexistent, or (2) make trial in the chosen forum inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal problems. In any balancing of conveniences, a real showing of convenience by a plaintiff who has sued in his home forum will normally outweigh the inconvenience the defendant may have shown. 330 U.S. at 524, 67 S.Ct. 828. Thus, where a plaintiff sues in his or her home forum, a court is required to keep the ease in the home forum unless the defendant can “establish such oppressiveness and vexation ... as to be out of all proportion to plaintiffs convenience.” Id.; see also American Dredging Co., 510 U.S. at 447-48, 114 S.Ct. 981. In this case, Plaintiffs argue— and we agree — that their “home forum” as American citizens is a United States court, such as the courts of the Southern District of New York. 3 Although a citizen’s choice of forum is not “dispositive” for the purposes of forum non conveniens, Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 255 n. 23, 102 S.Ct. 252, the choice of an American court over a foreign court should be given the heightened deference detailed in Roster. Here, the district court did not apply the Roster standard, but rather relied exclusively on a discussion of the Gilbert private and public interest factors. This omission and consequent failure to grant Plaintiffs’ choice of an American forum significant deference was unsound. Under the standard articulated in Roster, Plaintiffs’ decision to sue in New York should not be disturbed if that forum is not so oppressive and vexatious to IHC as to overwhelm the convenience to Plaintiffs of suing in their home forum. See 330 U.S. at 524, 67 S.Ct. 828. Additionally, the convenience of the New York forum to Plaintiffs must be real and substantial, as opposed to slight or nonexistent. 4 See id. These criteria are easily met in this case: IHC is a corporate defendant with its principal place of business in New York and is being sued for a relatively simple tort violation. Plaintiffs, in contrast, are ordinary American citizens for whom litigating in Egypt presents an obvious and significant inconvenience, especially considering their adverse experience with that country to date. This is not a case where the plaintiff is a corporation doing business abroad and can expect to litigate in foreign courts. See Reid-Walen, 933 F.2d at 1395 (courts partially discount citizenship when plaintiff does extensive foreign business); Contact Lumber Co. v. P.T. Moges Shipping Co., 918 F.2d 1446, 1449-50 (9th Cir.1990) (same) (citing Mizokami Bros, of Ariz., Inc. v. Baychem Corp., 556 F.2d 975, 978 (9th Cir.1977)). Under the circumstances presented here, we can see, no reason to make an exception to the holding in Koster that “a real showing of convenience by a plaintiff who has sued in his home forum will normally outweigh the inconvenience the defendant may have shown.” See 330 U.S., at 524, 67 S.Ct. 828. Indeed, the district court, in its analysis of the private interest factors under Gilbert, concluded that the degree of inconvenience to IHC of litigating in the United States did not offer a basis for dismissing the case. After considering IHC’s arguments regarding its need to implead Egypt as a third party, the availability of witnesses and evidence, the cost of obtaining depositions, and the possibility of a jury view in Egypt, the district court found that these factors “d[id] not strongly favor” the Egyptian forum. See Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., No. 95 CIV. 9006(LAP), 1997 WL 411469, at  (S.D.N.Y. July 18, 1997). IHC therefore did not carry its burden under Koster to demonstrate that New York was such an oppressive and vexatious forum as to be “out of all proportion” to its demonstrated convenience to Plaintiffs. Because the district court failed to apply the Koster standard and gave inadequate significance to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum as American citizens, we find that its determination that Egypt was the better forum for this litigation was erroneous. Plaintiffs’ decision to bring their suit in New York rather than in a foreign country should not be disturbed.