Opinion ID: 172533
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Swiss Courts are Available for Yavuz's Dispute

Text: Yavuz contends Adi is not amenable to service of process in Switzerland and that the district court's order failed to ensure Adi would accept a Swiss court's jurisdiction over him. He further argues Sigofine and Euroeastyet to be served as parties to this suitmay not be subject to service in Switzerland. His contentions are without merit. First, it was Adi (and FPM) who moved for a dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, stating that Fribourg, Switzerland would be the preferableif not mandatorylocation for Yavuz's suit. Second, Adi's attorney, on behalf of his client, expressly consented to service of process in Switzerland and to accept jurisdiction of a Swiss court. At oral argument in Yavuz I, Adi's attorney made the same representation. Oral Arg., Mar. 6, 2006, at 37:54-38:24; see Aple. Br. at 37 (Adi, through counsel, stating that he is amenable to process in Switzerland and would participate in a proceeding there); see also Gschwind, 161 F.3d at 606 (stating that a defendant's concession to service of process in an alternative forum is usually sufficient to make that forum available). We therefore reject Yavuz's claim that Adi may not be amenable to process in Switzerland. Yavuz's claims regarding defendants Sigofine and Euroeast likewise fail. In his complaint, Yavuz himself alleged that both of these defendants maintain offices in Fribourg, Switzerlandmaking them amenable to process there. Additionally, Yavuz has never served either of these parties; they were never made parties to the district court action, nor are they parties to this appeal. See Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 350, 119 S.Ct. 1322, 143 L.Ed.2d 448 (1999) (Service of process, under longstanding tradition in our system of justice, is fundamental to any procedural imposition on a named defendant.). Consequently, we can only conclude Yavuz must not believe Sigofine and Euroeast are essential to his case, nor does he present any arguments that compel us to view their amenability to process as critical to the forum non conveniens determination. In sum, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Switzerland was an available alternative forum for this dispute.