Opinion ID: 2772783
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Balance of the Interests

Text: Where another adequate forum is available, to dismiss on forum non conveniens the district court must also balance the private interests of the parties and the public interests of the alternative forums and find that those balances favor a different forum. Stroitelstvo, 589 F.3d at 424; Kamel, 108 F.3d at 803, citing Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508. More specifically, courts evaluate the private interest by focusing on the “(1) relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) availability of compulsory process and costs for attendance of witnesses; (3) possibility of view of premises, if appropriate; and (4) other practical issues, including ease of enforcement of any ultimate judgment.” In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate, 484 F.3d at 958, citing Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508. The court must also consider the public interest. Relevant public interest factors include the administrative difficulties stemming from court congestion; the local interest in having localized disputes decided at home; the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflicts of laws or in the application of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 37 Stroitelstvo, 589 F.3d at 425 (citations omitted). Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred at a basic level by failing to consider all of these factors in granting Erste Bank’s motion for reconsideration. From the court’s initial forum non conveniens determination and the shorter order on reconsideration, however, we believe it is clear that the district court evaluated the public and private interests relevant to the decision. In its order granting reconsideration, the district court focused on the relevant factors and explained why the “developments” in the case had pushed it to change its initial ruling. The court’s initial determination in 2011 was that the balance tipped in favor of retaining the case. The district court found then that the defendants had “not shown that the convenience of the parties, or the interests of justice would be best served by a dismissal of the instant action.” More specifically, the district court focused on the relative convenience of the parties, the broad dispersion of the evidence and witnesses, and the interest the United States has in providing remedies for human rights violations. Against that backdrop, the district court limited its explanation on reconsideration to those factors that might have changed in light of intervening developments, in terms of both this court’s precedent and the fact that all other defendants had been dismissed from the bank case. With all other defendants out of the case, and this court having stressed the value of Hungarian courts having a chance to hear these claims, it is easy to see why the district court would see that the balance had shifted. In this way, the district court reasonably determined that what was initially a close question decided in favor of retaining the suit had tipped the other 38 Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 way once the relative burdens of suit and the public interest factors started to favor Hungary as a forum. Even so, plaintiffs argue there was not sufficiently detailed treatment of each factor. Precedent makes clear that substantial deference is warranted when all relevant factors are discussed. Kamel, 108 F.3d at 802. Though the oft-quoted list is long, the Supreme Court has also noted that it did not catalogue all of the circumstances when forum non conveniens dismissal might be appropriate. Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 508, accord, Abad, 563 F.3d at 668. Perhaps that’s why the Court has made clear that the central focus is on the convenience of the parties and the practical difficulties of hearing a dispute in a certain locality. See Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 429. And in the past we have responded to the “laundry list” of factors provided by parties not by proceeding down the list but by considering whether the district judge reasonably concluded that the litigation should continue in the foreign forum. Abad, 563 F.3d at 668. We apply that approach here. The district court acted well within its discretion in finding that the balance favored dismissal. It is hard to see how the district court might have reached any other result here given the weight of international comity concerns in this case. Because the national bank and other private banks were dismissed from the suit for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction, respectively, Erste Bank is the only bank defendant still subject to suit in the United States. That fact alone means that the Erste Bank litigation becomes less convenient in the United States and more so in Hungary. When dismissal might eliminate the need for similar litigation in multiple places, forum non conveniens is favored. See, e.g., Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 435. While it is true that in other Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 39 cases the related proceedings in the foreign forum had already begun, it is also true that Hungary is the only forum where all the litigation relating to these claims against all defendants might be heard. Requiring suit in Hungary is the best way to ensure that plaintiffs’ claims against the banks are litigated only once on the merits. Plaintiffs suggest that they can ensure there will only be one suit—the one remaining in the United States—because they simply will not bring suit in Hungary against the previously dismissed parties. Even if that assurance were binding, plaintiffs seek to hold Erste Bank jointly and severally liable for the entire amount of the substantial harm caused to plaintiffs as a result of these crimes. For that reason, it is likely that Erste Bank would sue the national bank defendant and private bank defendants for either indemnification or contribution. Such problems can sometimes be resolved by having a defendant join additional parties as third-party defendants. The fact that the United States does not have jurisdiction over the relevant parties precludes that solution here. This inability to join the other parties supports holding trial in Hungary. See Piper, 454 U.S. at 259. Also, we would be especially wary of ruling on these claims absent these third parties because doing so might affect the interests of a foreign sovereign who previously was dismissed from suit. See Republic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 868–69 (2008) (concluding that the immunity sovereigns enjoy is diminished “if an important and consequential ruling affecting the sovereign’s substantial interest is determined, or at least assumed, by a federal court in the sovereign’s absence and over its objection”). The national bank should have the op40 Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 portunity to participate in any litigation that decides whether the various Hungarian banks are holding property in violation of Hungarian or international law. At the end of the day, then, at least some additional litigation would have to occur in Hungary even if plaintiffs won their suit against Erste Bank here. The type of evidence presented at both trials, which would look to establish the culpability of various bank defendants for the expropriations, would likely be similar. For these reasons, the district court correctly concluded that dismissing this case against the banks will not put additional litigation burdens on plaintiffs. Beyond the efficiency gains of litigating all claims in Hungary, the district court was right to point out that the dismissal of Erste Bank’s co-defendants raises concerns about access to evidence. As we noted before, “Hungary is where much of the evidence and surviving witnesses are located.” Abelesz, 692 F.3d at 684. While we take plaintiffs’ point that the testimony of plaintiffs themselves might be the most essential, Erste Bank also suggests that at least some important evidence is in the control of the dismissed parties. Erste Bank casts doubt on whether treaty obligations would oblige the national bank to comply with international discovery requests. See EA 173–76 (declaration of Erste Bank’s lawyer and attached exhibit laying out Hungary’s reservations to the Hague Evidence Convention). That the district court might no longer be able to compel record evidence located in Hungary while plaintiffs could still bring that evidence (their testimony) to Hungary weighs in favor of dismissal. And without some of the bank records in this case, the already difficult task of determining the succession of Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 41 bank property would become even more difficult if not impossible. It is not clear from the record how the costs of obtaining evidence will shift if this litigation moves to Hungary. Plaintiffs indicate that the witnesses are widely dispersed. For that reason, perhaps moving from the United States to Hungary will not increase costs as much as it might if witnesses were concentrated in the United States. But for the same reason, it is also not clear that moving the litigation will reduce travel burdens imposed on witnesses. Either way, because witnesses are not concentrated in the United States or Hungary, some will need to travel to testify. In terms of document costs, though, it stands to reason that most of the relevant bank records and other documents will be in Hungarian. Though neither party has provided an estimate of the costs of translating such materials, see Abad, 563 F.3d at 669, it seems obvious that otherwise heavy translation burdens will be greatly reduced if the case were litigated in Hungary. In addition to the private interest factors tipping in favor of litigation in Hungary, public interest concerns make clear that Hungary is the better forum. As discussed at length above, Hungary has a significant legal interest in hearing these claims in Hungarian courts. That is why plaintiffs should be required to exhaust in Hungary before bringing suit here against the national defendants. Allowing plaintiffs to sue a private bank on substantially similar claims might unduly prejudice a foreign sovereign in a way that undermines the reason we dismissed the national bank for lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. Dismissal for forum non conveniens accommodates international law norms and Hungary’s interest in being able to address these claims first. By 42 Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 contrast, while the United States has a general interest in ensuring that international law norms are enforced, in this particular case the executive branch has recommended “dismissal of claims against Erste Bank … on any valid legal ground(s).” EA 70 (United States statement of interest). This suggests that the United States’ interest in this litigation is modest. And the international comity concerns that would be raised if United States courts retained the case say nothing of the practical judicial problems. The public interest factors “point towards dismissal where the court would be required to ‘untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.’” Piper, 454 U.S. at 251 (citation omitted). It is at best uncertain what the basis for subject matter jurisdiction over Erste Bank might be. Even if jurisdiction in the United States were secure, it is likely that Hungarian law would apply to questions not governed by international law. See Abad, 563 F.3d at 669–72.5 A United States court would have to apply Hungarian law to a host of delicate issues, especially those concerning remedies. The application of foreign law— particularly that of a civil law system—favors dismissal in favor of a Hungarian forum. Stroitelstvo, 589 F.3d at 426; Abad, 563 F.3d at 670. In this case, a Hungarian court would be far better able to apply its own law than any United States court would be. Plaintiffs argue that whatever the outcome of the balance might have been, the district court failed to give their choice 5 At oral argument, plaintiffs indicated that if jurisdiction were based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Hungarian law would apply. Nos. 13-3073 & 14-1319 43 of forum sufficient weight. A plaintiff’s choice is presumed convenient to a plaintiff who chooses his home forum. Kamel, 108 F.3d at 803. And because at least some of the plaintiffs here are United States residents, we assume they have opted for the most convenient forum by suing in the United States. The district court emphasized this presumption in its first ruling, and it did nothing to suggest it had shifted the burden when it considered these factors in its motion for reconsideration. That presumption of convenience has been rebutted by the strength of the private and public factors discussed above. At bottom, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the more reasonable and convenient forum for the suit against Erste Bank is Hungary. Though it may seem unfair that Erste Bank was dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds in large part due to the prior dismissals of its co-defendants, this result should not be unexpected. When plaintiffs seek joint and several liability against multiple foreign defendants, dismissal of any one defendant can shift the balance. Thus, we uphold the district court’s dismissal of Erste Bank.