Court Opinion

ID: 9461607
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:19:04.980818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:09.668266
License: Public Domain

WALLACE, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result):
While I concur in the result reached by my brothers, I deem it important to point out where we part company. Following the same path as the district court, the majority relies on Hoffman v. Goberman, 420 F.2d 423 (3d Cir. 1970), which requires the following for a forum non conveniens dismissal:
[A] clear showing of facts which either (1) establish such oppression and vexation of a defendant as to be out of all proportion to the plaintiff’s 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.
Id. at 426—27 (footnote omitted). Thus, the majority adopts an “either/or” test that requires either (1) private factors or (2) public factors sufficient for dismissal. I do not believe the proper test requires ■ such compartmentalization; a combination of both private and public factors may properly lead to a forum non conveniens dismissal.
The language relied upon by the district court and the majority is taken from Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947). Although the Justice spoke in “either/or” terms, it appears to me that he was only conceptually distinguishing two kinds of factors that a court could consider in making the discretionary decision to retain or decline jurisdiction. This intent becomes clear from a comparison with Justice Jackson’s opinion for the Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947), decided the same day as Koster. Therefore, I do not believe the two categories amount to two independent tests. Although factors from either category alone may justify a forum non conveniens dismissal, they may also enter the balance together.
From the record it appears that applying what I deem to be the proper test would yield the same conclusion as the majority reaches and, therefore, I concur in the result.