Opinion ID: 6986372
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Plaintiffs Choice of Forum under Roster and Gilbert

Text: In 1947, the Supreme Court decided the companion cases Koster, 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 conve-niens that is still followed in federal courts today. 2 See, e.g., Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241, 102 S.Ct. 252; 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 that “the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed,” “unless the balance [of factors] is strongly in favor of the defendant,” 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, Koster is “a consistent, pragmatic application of Gilbert,” Alcoa, 654 F.2d at 152, in the home forum context. The Supreme Court has recognized that a district court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, dismiss a case “when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear the case, and when trial in the chosen forum would ‘establish .... oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant ... out of all proportion to plaintiffs convenience,’ or when the ‘chosen forum [is] inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal problems.’ ” Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 255 & n. 23, 102 S.Ct. 252. Although a citizen’s choice of forum is not dispositive for the purposes of forum non conveniens, a plaintiffs choice of forum is entitled to greater deference when the plaintiff has chosen the home forum. See id. 3 Here, the district court did not accord such deference, or even mention Koster, in its application 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. 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. 4 Under the standard articulated in Gilbert and Koster 5 , Plaintiffs’ decision to sue in New York should not be disturbed unless the balance of factors is strongly in favor of IHC. See Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508, 67 S.Ct. 839. We conclude that IHC has not met its burden of showing that the aggregate of relevant factors weighs heavily on the side of dismissal: 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 presumption 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.” Koster, 330 U.S. at 524, 67 S.Ct. 828; see Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508, 67 S.Ct. 839. 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., 1997 WL 411469, at  (S.D.N.Y. 1997). IHC therefore did not carry its burden under Gilbert and Koster to demonstrate that the balance of conveniences tipped strongly in its favor. - ■ In the balancing of conveniences, we believe that the substantial and unusual emotional burden on Plaintiffs if they were required to travel to Egypt provides additional support for keeping the case in their chosen forum of New York. Plaintiffs are atypical in that they are either the widows or the victim of a murderous act directed specifically against foreigners. Understandably, they are strongly adverse to litigating in a country where foreigners have been the target of hostile attacks, and have concerns for their own safety if required to travel there to bring their suit. Plaintiffs have supplied us with ample evidence of terrorist attacks occurring after the events giving rise to their action — including the subsequent killing of nine foreign tourists by the very man who attacked Plaintiffs — which give credence to Plaintiffs’ uncertainty as to the safety of American visitors to Egypt insofar as fear of religious extremism is concerned. In its forum non conveniens analysis, the district court did not even mention, much less give any weight to, the emotional burden faced by Plaintiffs if the case were to be heard in Egypt. In the subsequent Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion filed by Plaintiffs on this specific point, the district court affirmed its decision to dismiss the case in favor of the Egyptian forum- and rejected the argument that Plaintiffs’ concerns tilted the balance in favor of keeping the case in New York. For the purposes of forum non conveniens, however, “the ultimate inquiry is where trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and .the ends of justice.” Koster, 330 U.S. at 527, 67 S.Ct. 828 (emphasis added); see also Maganlal, 942 F.2d at 167. We believe that justice is best served in this case by acknowledging the unique and heavy burden placed on Plaintiffs if they are required to litigate in Egypt. In balancing the interests at stake for the purposes of forum non conveniens, the district court should have taken into account the unusual circumstances of Plaintiffs that weigh strongly in favor of the New York forum. Because the district court gave inadequate significance to Plaintiffs’ choice of forum as American citizens and failed to consider Plaintiffs’ emotional burden of having to travel to Egypt for trial in its balancing, 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.