AdvanFort Company v. Zamil Offshore Services Company

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 29

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1007

ADVANFORT COMPANY,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

ZAMIL OFFSHORE SERVICES COMPANY; SAUDI PORTS AUTHORITY, a

foreign sovereign State,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at

Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00906-LMB-IDD)

Argued: January 29, 2025 Decided: April 22, 2025

Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the majority opinion, in which Senior

Judge Floyd joined. Judge Thacker wrote a dissenting opinion.

ARGUED: Benjamin L. Hatch, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for

Appellant. Richmond Turner Moore, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington,

D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Clara Brillembourg, Washington, D.C., Peter A.

Sullivan, New York, New York, Andrew B. Loewenstein, Roseanna K. Loring, Matthew

F. Casassa, Boston, Massachusetts, Stephen Robin, FOLEY HOAG LLP, Denver,

Colorado, for Appellant. John S. Williams, Nicholas A. Maricic, Janae N. Staicer,

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 29

WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Zamil Offshore

Services Company.

2

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 3 of 29

KING, Circuit Judge:

In this appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia, plaintiff AdvanFort Company

(“AdvanFort”) challenges the district court’s December 1, 2023 dismissal of its complaint

against defendants Zamil Offshore Services Company (“Zamil”) and the Saudi Ports

Authority (the “Ports Authority”) on the basis of forum non conveniens. See AdvanFort

Co. v. Zamil Offshore Servs. Co., 704 F. Supp. 3d 669 (E.D. Va. 2023). On appeal,

AdvanFort primarily contends that the district court abused its discretion in determining

that the Saudi Arabian judicial system is a more convenient forum to litigate its tort claims

than AdvanFort’s choice of forum, the Eastern District of Virginia. AdvanFort also argues

that the court was procedurally barred from dismissing its complaint after the court had

entered default against the Ports Authority for its failure to appear.

Having carefully assessed the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of

oral argument, we are satisfied that the district court did not err in its dismissal of

AdvanFort’s complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens. We therefore affirm the

district court.

I.

A.

AdvanFort is a maritime security company headquartered in Fairfax County,

Virginia, that deploys vessels to protect oil tankers and other vulnerable ships from the

threats posed by piracy in international waters. In May 2012, AdvanFort deployed a former

British Naval vessel, the Seaman Guard Virginia (the “Virginia”), to perform contracted

3

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 4 of 29

anti-piracy services for commercial fleets in the Red Sea. While the Virginia was sailing

the Red Sea, AdvanFort determined that the vessel required routine maintenance and minor

repairs.

AdvanFort sought repair services from defendant Zamil, a company that provided

maritime construction and maintenance services from a leased shipyard (the “Jeddah

Shipyard”) at the Jeddah Islamic Port in Saudi Arabia. Zamil operated the Jeddah Shipyard

pursuant to a lease from the Ports Authority, a Saudi government entity. On October 19,

2013, AdvanFort docked the Virginia at the Jeddah Shipyard in what it describes as “in

good condition.” At some point in October 2013, Zamil proposed that it would undertake

electrical maintenance work on the Virginia, and AdvanFort agreed. On October 27, 2013

— while the Virginia was undergoing those electrical repairs — a fire broke out below the

vessel’s deck.

AdvanFort believed that the fire aboard the Virginia was caused by Zamil’s repair

personnel, and thus, in 2014, filed suit against Zamil and the Ports Authority in a Saudi

Arabian court. Zamil filed a countersuit against AdvanFort shortly thereafter. Three years

later — in April 2017 — the Saudi court issued a judgment dismissing AdvanFort’s claims

and awarding Zamil partial damages on its counterclaims. All the while, the Virginia

remained docked at the Jeddah Shipyard.

In early 2022, Zamil transferred the Virginia to a storage yard located within the

Jeddah Shipyard, claiming that the vessel was at risk of sinking, thereby creating an

environmental or safety hazard. In June 2022, Zamil informed AdvanFort that its lease

agreement with the Ports Authority was ending and that it would dispose of the Virginia if

4

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 5 of 29

AdvanFort did not retrieve the vessel. AdvanFort then dispatched a marine expert from

the United States to inspect the Virginia. The inspection revealed that the Virginia had

been stripped bare — a measure which Zamil claimed was necessary to facilitate the

transfer of the Virginia to its storage yard. In addition to the removal of the ship’s engines,

steering equipment, and anchors, the inspection observed that the Jeddah Shipyard had left

the Virginia’s windows and hatches open, causing the ship to rust.

B.

1.

On July 12, 2023, AdvanFort filed a five-count complaint in the district court for

the Eastern District of Virginia against Zamil and the Ports Authority for conversion,

breach of bailment, negligence, and gross negligence. It sought damages for the loss of the

Virginia, plus damages for the loss of profits resulting from AdvanFort’s inability to deploy

the vessel due to its unserviceable condition.

AdvanFort properly served process on the Ports Authority, a subdivision of the

Saudi Arabian government, pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. See 28

U.S.C. § 1608. 1 To effectuate service of process, AdvanFort requested that the Clerk of

Court mail a service package containing the summons, complaint, and notice of suit to the

1

Section 1608 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requires “[s]ervice in the

courts of the United States . . . upon a foreign state or political subdivision of a foreign

state” be made by “sending a copy of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit,

together with a translation of each into the official language of the foreign state, by any

form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of court

to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned.” See 28

U.S.C. §§ 1608(a), (a)(3).

5

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 6 of 29

head of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on September

11, 2023. The service package was delivered to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on

September 25, 2023, where it was accepted and signed for by an authorized representative

of the Ministry. 2

Zamil waived service on September 29, 2023. It then moved to dismiss AdvanFort’s

complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia on the grounds of forum non conveniens and

for lack of personal jurisdiction, contending that the Saudi courts are a more convenient

forum to litigate AdvanFort’s claims. On October 30, 2023, AdvanFort opposed Zamil’s

motion and moved for limited discovery relating to forum non conveniens and personal

jurisdiction.

In opposition to Zamil’s motion to dismiss, AdvanFort primarily argued that the

Saudi courts are unavailable and inadequate. In doing so, it contended that the Saudi courts

are neither independent nor impartial, and that no Saudi tribunal was available for it to

litigate its claims against the Ports Authority and Zamil in a single action. To support its

claims of inadequacy, AdvanFort cited various publicly sourced documents and tendered

the opinion of an expert witness to argue that the Saudi courts would subject AdvanFort to

2

Service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) is deemed made “as of the date

of receipt indicated in the certification, signed and returned postal receipt, or other proof

of service applicable to the method of service employed.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1608(c)(2).

Pursuant to § 1608, service on the Ports Authority occurred on September 25, 2023, when

the service package was signed for at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See Republic of

Sudan v. Harrison, 139 S. Ct. 1048, 1059 (2019) (explaining that “service is deemed to

have occurred on the date shown on a document signed by the person who received it from

the carrier”).

6

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 7 of 29

unfair treatment and deprive it of all remedies. Those arguments included, inter alia, that

lawyers and witnesses face retribution for supporting lawsuits opposing the Saudi

government or its allied families; that judges, lawyers, and critics of the Saudi justice

system have been detained or tortured; that the Saudi government is currently prosecuting

multiple judges for “high treason,” on the basis that those judges have issued judgments

perceived as adverse to the government; and that witnesses are treated unfairly or

discredited based on their gender or religion.

Although Zamil moved to dismiss AdvanFort’s complaint, the Ports Authority

failed to appear in the Eastern District of Virginia within the 60-day time limit mandated

by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1608(d). 3 On November 30,

2023, AdvanFort requested entry of default against the Ports Authority for its failure to

respond to the complaint or otherwise appear.

2.

On December 1, 2023, the district court conducted a hearing on Zamil’s motion to

dismiss. Before turning to the merits of Zamil’s motion, the court acknowledged that the

Ports Authority had failed to file a responsive pleading or otherwise appear in the

proceedings, and was therefore in default. Later that day, the court directed the Clerk to

file an entry of default against the Ports Authority, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

3

Section 1608(d) of Title 28 requires that “[i]n any action brought in a court of

the United States or of a State, a foreign state, a political subdivision thereof, or an agency

or instrumentality of a foreign state shall serve an answer or other responsive pleading to

the complaint within sixty days after service has been made under this section.”

7

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 8 of 29

Procedure 55(a) (“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought

has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise,

the clerk must enter the party's default.”).

The district court then informed the parties that it intended to dismiss AdvanFort’s

complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens. The court thereafter denied AdvanFort’s

motion for limited discovery and dismissed its claims against Zamil and the defaulted Ports

Authority. Later that day, the court filed its Memorandum Opinion dismissing

AdvanFort’s complaint, concluding that the Saudi courts were available, adequate, and

more convenient in light of public and private interests involved, explaining that all the

relevant events had occurred in Saudi Arabia and all relevant evidence was located there.

In rendering its forum non conveniens decision, the district court first rejected

AdvanFort’s availability contentions, determining that “[n]either of AdvanFort’s

arguments preclude the [c]ourt from finding that Saudi courts are available to hear” the

action “[m]erely because the Ports Authority has not yet appeared” before the Eastern

Virginia court. See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 675-76. It also rejected AdvanFort’s

argument that the Saudi courts were unavailable because AdvanFort may be required to

pursue its claims against the Ports Authority and Zamil before separate tribunals — that is,

the Saudi Board of Grievances and the Saudi Commercial Court, respectively. Because

dismissal “would not force AdvanFort to litigate in two different countries” — and because

together those separate tribunals possess jurisdiction to hear and resolve AdvanFort’s

claims — the court found that “the Saudi courts provide[d] an available forum to resolve

AdvanFort’s claims against both defendants.” Id. at 676.

8

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 9 of 29

The district court then turned to and assessed the adequacy of the Saudi courts. After

considering AdvanFort’s arguments regarding corrupt practices in the Saudi courts, the

court determined that those assertions were generalized allegations that were insufficient

to support the proposition that the Saudi courts were inadequate. To illustrate that the Saudi

courts were capable of fairly adjudicating AdvanFort’s claims, the court pointed to and

emphasized the parties’ prior litigation in Saudi Arabia, observing that “although the

[Saudi] court dismissed AdvanFort’s claims, it awarded Zamil . . . less than one-third” of

the repair fees Zamil had sought in its countersuit. See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 676-

77.

The district court then turned to the public and private interests at stake in the

litigation, ultimately concluding that both weighed in favor of dismissing on the basis of

forum non conveniens. The court explained that the private interest factors favored

litigating the dispute in the Saudi courts. Although the court recognized that AdvanFort

had brought suit in its home forum of Virginia, it nevertheless “partially discounted”

AdvanFort’s citizenship in the United States and the presumptive effect of its choice of

forum because AdvanFort had elected to do business abroad in Saudi Arabia. See

AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 678. And “[b]ecause the relevant conduct occurred in Saudi

Arabia” — not the United States — and because AdvanFort was not in Saudi Arabia when

the alleged damage to the vessel occurred,” the court recognized that “the parties will need

to rely on physical and testimonial evidence” located in Saudi Arabia. Id. at 678. The

court also explained that, given the claims at issue, it was likely that the litigation would

9

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 10 of 29

involve third-party witnesses who would not be under the control of either party and over

whom a Virginia court would lack authority to compel testimony.

The district court similarly found that the public interest factors weighed in favor of

litigating AdvanFort’s claims in Saudi Arabia. The court explained that, at bottom,

AdvanFort’s “action is about a vessel in Saudi Arabia that was allegedly damaged by a

Saudi company, with Saudi employees, in a Saudi shipyard in Saudi Arabia.” See

AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 679. The Commonwealth of Virginia, therefore, had “little

local interest in a case involving an alleged tort arising from performance of a contract

overseas.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And, in any event, the court would need

to apply Saudi law to AdvanFort’s claims under Virginia’s choice of law statute. Id.

(explaining that Virginia’s choice of law statute mandates that a “court must apply the law

of the place where the last event necessary to make an action liable for an alleged tort takes

place”).

In sum, after assessing the threshold questions of availability and adequacy, and

then weighing the public and private interests at stake in the matter, the district court

determined that Saudi Arabia was a more convenient forum for AdvanFort’s litigation. It

therefore dismissed AdvanFort’s complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens.

AdvanFort has timely appealed the district court’s dismissal of its complaint, and

we possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

10

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 11 of 29

II.

We review a district court’s dismissal based on the doctrine of forum non

conveniens for abuse of discretion, “disturbing its decision only when it failed to consider

a material factor or clearly erred in evaluating the factors before it, or did not hold the

defendants to their burden of persuasion on all elements of the forum non conveniens

analysis.” See Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 731 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation

marks and alterations omitted). “[A]bsent a ‘clear abuse of discretion,’ the district court’s

‘decision deserves substantial deference.’” See dmarcian, Inc. v. dmarcian Europe BV, 60

F.4th 119, 136 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257

(1981)).

III.

On appeal, AdvanFort maintains that the district court abused its discretion in

dismissing the AdvanFort complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens, and thus argues

that these proceedings should be litigated in the Eastern District of Virginia.

A federal court has the discretion to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non

conveniens where another forum is more appropriate for adjudicating a dispute,

considering “the factual and legal issues of the underlying dispute.” See Sinochem Int’l

Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 423 (2007) (internal quotation

marks omitted). The forum non conveniens doctrine requires a court to consider whether

an alternative forum is “available” or “adequate” and, if so, whether the alternative forum

is “more convenient in light of the public and private interests involved.” See Jiali Tang

11

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 12 of 29

v. Synutra Int’l, Inc., 656 F.3d 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2011). The moving party bears the burden

of showing that an adequate alternative forum exists. See Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724,

731 (4th Cir. 2010).

And as we have recited previously, a forum non conveniens determination is

“committed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” and we therefore afford its decision

substantial deference. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). We

discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling that its forum non conveniens

inquiry in this matter favors a Saudi Arabian forum, and we therefore affirm the dismissal

of AdvanFort’s claims against Zamil and the Ports Authority on that basis, without

addressing the parties’ contentions regarding personal jurisdiction. 4

A.

Before assessing the district court’s dismissal on the merits, we must address

AdvanFort’s claim that the court was precluded from dismissing its complaint because the

Ports Authority was in default. As AdvanFort asserts, an entry of default limits the

defenses available to the defaulting defendant and, thus, the Ports Authority was not

4

The district court declined to reach and resolve Zamil’s arguments regarding a lack

of personal jurisdiction over the defendants after rendering its decision to dismiss

AdvanFort’s complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens. As the Supreme Court has

held, “[a] district court . . . may dispose of an action by a forum non conveniens dismissal,

bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations of

convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.” See Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 422.

In light of the district court’s decision to dismiss AdvanFort’s complaint on the basis of

forum non conveniens, we decline to reach the issues regarding personal jurisdiction raised

on appeal.

12

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 13 of 29

entitled to raise or benefit from its codefendant Zamil’s assertion of the procedural defense

of forum non conveniens. We are constrained to disagree.

As we have explained, “federal courts possess certain implied or inherent powers

that ‘are necessary to the exercise of all others.’” See United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d

220, 236 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34

(1812)). More specifically, we have recognized that a district court has “the inherent

authority to control various aspects of the cases before that court,” including the ability to

“dismiss a lawsuit sua sponte . . . on [the] grounds of forum non conveniens.” Id. at 236-

37; see also Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 509 (1947). With those principles in

mind, we discern no reasonable basis for us to limit the district court’s inherent authority

to dismiss this action on the basis of forum non conveniens, simply because the Ports

Authority failed to move for dismissal.

Moreover, our Court has adhered to the longstanding principle that “if the suit

should be decided against the complainant on the merits, the bill will be dismissed as to all

the defendants alike — the defaulter as well as the others.” See Frow v. De La Vega, 82

U.S. 552, 554 (1872). We have thus recognized that where “a defending party establishes

that [a] plaintiff has no cause of action or present right of recovery, this defense generally

inures also to the benefit of a defaulting defendant.” See U.S. ex rel. Hudson v. Peerless

Ins. Co., 374 F.2d 942, 945 (4th Cir. 1967) (internal citations omitted); see also, e.g., Equip.

Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Comput. Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 348 (4th Cir. 1992) (explaining

that when action against defaulting codefendant “was ultimately dismissed, it is not

vulnerable to judgment”). And although our Court has not applied this principle in the

13

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 14 of 29

circumstances presented here, we see no reason to ignore our precedent merely because the

contested decision to dispose of AdvanFort’s action was based on “a non-merits ground

for dismissal.” See Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 432 (explaining that a dismissal on the basis of

forum non conveniens “is a determination that the merits should be adjudicated

elsewhere”).

Indeed, it would be “absurd” and “unreasonable to hold” that a district court is

precluded from dismissing an action against a defaulting codefendant “where the court is

satisfied from the proofs offered by the other” that a more convenient forum exists. See

Frow, 82 U.S. at 554. As made clear by its decision, the district court was satisfied that

Zamil had satisfied its burden of establishing an available and adequate alternative forum

as to both defendants. At the outset of its decision — and after recognizing that the Ports

Authority was in default — the court concluded that its forum non conveniens analysis

would equally apply to both Zamil and the Ports Authority. See AdvanFort Co. v. Zamil

Offshore Servs. Co., 704 F. Supp. 3d 669, 675 (E.D. Va. 2023). The court then carefully

analyzed the threshold factors of availability and adequacy with respect to Zamil and the

Ports Authority, ultimately concluding that those factors weighed in favor of AdvanFort

litigating its claims against both defendants in the Saudi courts. E.g., id. at 675-77. We

therefore cannot say that the court erred in applying its analysis equally to each defendant,

or in ruling that Zamil had satisfied its burden of establishing that the Saudi courts are the

more convenient forum.

Accordingly, we decline to adopt AdvanFort’s view that the district court erred in

dismissing the claims against the defaulted Ports Authority.

14

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 15 of 29

B.

Having determined that the district court did not err in dismissing AdvanFort’s

complaint when the Ports Authority was in default, we will turn to and assess the district

court’s forum non conveniens ruling. AdvanFort contends that the district court committed

reversible error in ruling that the Saudi courts are an available and adequate forum. It also

contends that the district court erred in the final step of its forum non conveniens inquiry

by improperly balancing the public and private interest factors at stake in this litigation.

These errors, AdvanFort maintains, amount to an abuse of the court’s discretion.

1.

“At the outset of any forum non conveniens inquiry, the court must determine

whether there exists an alternate forum.” See Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 254 n.22

(internal quotation marks omitted). “Ordinarily, this requirement will be satisfied when

the defendant is ‘amenable to process’ in the other jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Gulf Oil Corp.,

330 at 506-07). And, importantly, “the alternate forum must be available as to all

defendants” — that is, all parties must come under the jurisdiction of the foreign forum.

See Galustian, 591 F.3d at 731 (citing Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208,

221 (5th Cir. 2000)).

As the district court explained, AdvanFort “does not contest that Saudi courts would

have jurisdiction over both defendants.” See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 675. Rather,

AdvanFort claims that the Saudi courts are rendered unavailable because it may be forced

to bring its claims against Zamil and the Ports Authority in two different tribunals, both

located in the city of Jeddah: The Commercial Court and the Board of Grievances,

15

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 16 of 29

respectively. 5 The Board of Grievances, as AdvanFort argues, exercises “exclusive

jurisdiction over administrative cases and lawsuits filed against government bodies” like

the Ports Authority. See Appellant’s Br. 27. And AdvanFort maintains that “the Ports

Authority cannot be brought before the Commercial Court,” where its claims against Zamil

would be litigated. Id. at 28.

AdvanFort thus urges us to hold that a defendant moving for dismissal on the basis

of forum non conveniens bears the burden of identifying a single available alternative

forum. Our precedent, however, does not go so far as to demand that a defendant must

identify a single tribunal in a foreign jurisdiction where all claims brought by a plaintiff

may be heard and resolved. Rather, we require only that a defendant provide more than

generalized evidence to demonstrate that “the alternative forum is better,” i.e., available.

See Kontoulas v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 745 F.2d 312, 316 (4th Cir. 1984) (explaining that

letter suggesting Maryland physician “will consent to personal jurisdiction in Australia”

was insufficient to establish available alternative forum); see also Galustian, 591 F.3d at

730-31 (vacating forum non conveniens dismissal as premature where “no evidence was

proffered regarding the availability of the forum” as to codefendant). And although we

have recognized that a defendant can meet its availability burden by “indicat[ing] which

court provides the alternative forum,” instead of merely “suggest[ing] the country,” we

5

AdvanFort’s expert witness observed that “[i]t appears” from filings in the parties’

prior Saudi litigation that “the Commercial Court in these cases was located within the

Board of Grievances, as the Board of Grievances address is listed. Though in the same

location, the two venues are legally distinct.” See J.A. 239 n.34.

16

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 17 of 29

have not required anything beyond a showing that all parties are “amenable to process in

the other jurisdiction.” See Kontoulas, 745 F.2d at 316; Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at

254 n.22.

In light of our precedent, we cannot say that the district court’s availability analysis

was improper — particularly where, as the court recognized, “the parties’ Saudi Arabian

attorneys dispute whether AdvanFort would have to sue each defendant in a different Saudi

tribunal.” See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 676. Despite this disagreement, this was not

a case where “the record before the court was so fragmentary that it [was] impossible to

make a sound determination.” See El-Fadl v. Central Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 677

(D.C. Cir. 1996) (explaining that defendants “must provide enough information to enable

the District Court to evaluate alternative forum”) (internal citations omitted). Indeed, our

review of the record demonstrates that Zamil provided detailed information in its expert’s

affidavit regarding the availability of the Saudi courts. See, e.g., J.A. 323-24 (explaining

that a claimant is allowed “to request that the [Board of Grievances] involve another party

in the case”). Only after reviewing the evidence did the court decide to credit the opinion

of Zamil’s Saudi legal expert, who had explained that the Board of Grievances has the

discretion to hear claims against both the Ports Authority and Zamil. We discern no

instance in the court’s analysis demonstrating that it “did not hold the defendants to their

burden of persuasion” on this issue. See Galustian, 591 F.3d at 731.

Moreover, the district court correctly recognized that, in circumstances where

“courts have denied motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens,” those courts did so

only “when dismissing the actions would split claims against domestic defendants from

17

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 18 of 29

foreign defendants, thereby forcing plaintiffs to litigate in two different countries.” See

AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 676 (explaining that AdvanFort “cite[d] inapposite cases”). 6

The court then reasoned that — unlike in the decisions it reviewed — “dismissing this

action would not force AdvanFort to litigate in two different countries.” Id. “[A]nd

because together the Board of Grievances and the Commercial Court have jurisdiction to

hear AdvanFort’s claims against defendants,” the Saudi courts are available “to resolve

AdvanFort’s claims against both defendants.” Id. We cannot say, therefore, that the

court’s ruling constituted an abuse of its discretion. We thus agree that the Saudi courts

provide an available alternative forum to litigate AdvanFort’s claims.

2.

AdvanFort next argues that the district court erred in evaluating the Saudi courts’

adequacy as an alternative forum. Specifically, AdvanFort contends that the court

misconstrued its claims of judicial corruption and unfairness as “generalized” or

“anecdotal,” thereby disregarding the detailed evidence from its expert witness supporting

those claims. See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 676-78. We find no merit to AdvanFort’s

contentions.

6

Our sister circuits appear to have routinely declined to find that an available forum

exists in instances where a dismissal for forum non conveniens would result in the parties

being “splintered” across different countries. See DIRTT Env’t Sols., Inc. v. Falkbuilt Ltd.,

65 F.4th 547, 554 (10th Cir. 2023); see also Associacao Brasileira de Medicina de Grupo

v. Stryker Corp., 891 F.3d 615, 621 (6th Cir. 2018); Fischer v. Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt.,

777 F.3d 847, 867 (7th Cir. 2015).

18

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 19 of 29

As with the other forum non conveniens factors, the burden is on the defendant to

demonstrate that a foreign forum is adequate — or, in other words, that “all parties can

come within that forum’s jurisdiction, and the parties will not be deprived of all remedies

or treated unfairly.” See Tang, 656 F.3d at 249. We recognize, however, that “rare

circumstances” exist “where the remedy offered by the other forum is clearly

unsatisfactory.” See Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 254 n.22. In those circumstances, “the

other forum may not be an adequate alternative, and the initial requirement may not be

satisfied.” Id.

Initially, we observe that AdvanFort does not contest that the Saudi courts permit

the litigation of this dispute. AdvanFort instead argues that the Saudi legal system is

corrupt and thus incapable of adjudicating its dispute fairly. Although allegations such as

those AdvanFort advances are not to be taken lightly, we must emphasize that an adequate

forum need not be a perfect forum. See, e.g., Compania Naviera Joanna SA v. Koninklijke

Boskalis Westminster NV, 569 F.3d 189, 205 (finding adequate foreign forum despite

differences in limitation-of-liability process).

Indeed, courts have recognized that a forum is not rendered inadequate merely

because it applies less favorable substantive law, utilizes different adjudicatory procedures,

or because of general allegations of corruption in the forum’s judicial system. See

Compania Naviera, 569 F.3d at 202 (“[A] difference in the law in the two forums . . . is

not sufficient to bar application of the forum non conveniens doctrine.”); see also Lockman

Found. v. Evangelical All. Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 768 (9th Cir. 1991); Blanco v. Blanco

Indus. de Venezuela, 997 F.2d 974, 981-82 (2d Cir. 1993). And courts should be hesitant

19

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 20 of 29

“to pass value judgments on the adequacy of justice and the integrity” of a foreign forum’s

judicial system based only on “conclusory” allegations or “sweeping generalizations.” See

In re Arbitration Between Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M. v. Nak Naftogaz of

Ukraine., 311 F.3d 488, 499 (2d Cir. 2002). As such, “anecdotal evidence of corruption

and delay provides [an] insufficient basis” for concluding that a foreign forum is

inadequate. See Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1179 (9th Cir.

2006). Plaintiffs must instead demonstrate that they would face serious obstacles to

conducting litigation, such as “extreme amounts of partiality or inefficiency,” or “a

complete absence of due process or an inability of the forum to provide substantial justice

to the parties.” See Leon v. Million Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001);

Monegasque, 311 F.3d at 499.

Our review of the record in this matter shows that the district court did not err in

determining that AdvanFort’s allegations were generalized or anecdotal, and therefore

insufficient to sustain its claims that the Saudi courts are incapable of adjudicating its

dispute. In assessing those allegations, the court reviewed numerous cases from other

jurisdictions where plaintiffs advanced similar claims. Although AdvanFort argues that

the court’s reliance on these cases — which it asserts are inapposite — is erroneous, we

are satisfied that the court’s thorough review of AdvanFort’s allegations was both

consistent and reasonable, considering the rulings of other courts and the nature of

AdvanFort’s claims.

We also identify no error in the district court’s weighing of AdvanFort’s prior Saudi

litigation. See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 676-77. The court was correct to point out

20

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 21 of 29

that the reduction of damages totalling nearly one-third of those sought by Zamil in its

countersuit “misaligns” with AdvanFort’s claims that “the Saudi judicial system, as a

whole, is corrupt and thus incapable of adjudicating disputes.” Id. at 676. We therefore

agree with the court that AdvanFort’s allegations are not sufficient to sustain a

determination that the Saudi judicial system is so corrupt or biased as to be an inadequate

forum for litigating AdvanFort’s complaint.

3.

“If the alternative forum is both available and adequate, the district court must weigh

the public and private interest factors.” See Tang, 656 F.3d at 249. That is, it must evaluate

“the balance of conveniences” to determine if a “trial in the chosen forum would be

unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or the court.” See Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S.

at 256 n.23. Before engaging with its analysis of the public and private interest factors,

however, a court “must establish the appropriate level of deference owing to the

[plaintiff’s] choice of forum.” See DiFederico v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 796, 802

(4th Cir. 2013). It is with this threshold inquiry that AdvanFort contends the district court

initially erred by failing to determine the proper level of deference given to AdvanFort’s

choice of forum, the Eastern District of Virginia. It argues that, as a Virginia corporation

bringing its claims in a Virginia court, it is entitled to increased deference.

AdvanFort is correct that ordinarily, “a citizen plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled

to even greater deference when the plaintiff chooses her ‘home forum.’” See DiFederico,

714 F.3d at 802-03 (quoting Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 255-56). But we have

recognized that in circumstances where “the plaintiff is a corporation doing business

21

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 22 of 29

abroad,” it “should expect to litigate in foreign courts.” Id. at 807. Indeed, where an

American corporation engaged in “extensive foreign business . . . brings an action for

injury occurring in a foreign country, many courts have partially discounted the plaintiff’s

United States citizenship.” Id. (first quoting Reid-Walen v. Hansen, 933 F.2d 1390, 1395

(8th Cir. 1991); and then citing Mizokami Bros. of Ariz., Inc. v. Baychem Corp., 556 F.2d

975, 978 (9th Cir. 1977)). In determining the deference applied to a plaintiff’s choice of

forum, we have recognized that a court should demonstrate through “affirmative evidence

that [it] did in fact consider this heightened standard when it conducted its analysis.” Id.

at 803.

And that is precisely what the district court did here: Rather than merely implying

that it gave less deference to AdvanFort’s choice of forum, the district court explicitly set

forth its reasoning to “partially discount” the deference afforded to AdvanFort. See

AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 678; cf. DiFederico, 714 F.3d at 803 (explaining that court’s

failure to provide “affirmative evidence” was abuse of discretion). The district court first

explained that, although AdvanFort sued in its home forum, it had “elected to do business

with Zamil in Saudi Arabia” and therefore “should expect to litigate in foreign courts.” See

AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 678. And so the court “partially discount[ed] AdvanFort’s

United States Citizenship.” Id. We cannot say, therefore, that the court erred in applying

our precedent in DiFederico, or by partially discounting the deference owed to

AdvanFort’s choice of forum.

After establishing the proper level of deference, the district court turned to

evaluating the private interest factors at stake in this dispute. As we have acknowledged,

22

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 23 of 29

“the forum non conveniens doctrine is ultimately concerned with convenience, not simply

the locus of alleged wrongful conduct.” See Tang, 656 F.3d at 252. To guide this inquiry,

the Supreme Court has explained that a court should consider private interest factors such

as the “relative ease of access to sources of proof,” the “availability of compulsory process”

and the “cost of obtaining the attendance” of witnesses, the possibility of viewing the

premises, plus “all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and

inexpensive.” See Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241 n.6; see also Gulf Oil Corp. v.

Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). AdvanFort, however, contends that the court failed in

its consideration of those factors. We disagree.

We are satisfied that the district court properly exercised its discretion in weighing

the relevant factors, most notably by recognizing that “the relevant conduct occurred in

Saudi Arabia,” and thus “the parties will need to rely on physical and testimonial evidence

located in Saudi Arabia, including Jeddah Shipyard employees, AdvanFort’s marine

expert, and physical evidence such as the vessel which remains in Saudi Arabia.” See

AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 678. The court also observed that it lacks the authority to

compel the attendance of Saudi witnesses, which would “greatly undermin[e] a fact-finding

effort” in Virginia. See Tang, 656 F.3d at 252. Moreover, because AdvanFort’s claims

“involves events spread over ten years at a Saudi Arabian shipyard — including allegations

that Zamil allowed the vessel to be looted by third parties,” the court found it “reasonable

to expect that litigation of the case will involve third-party witnesses who are not under

either party’s control.” See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 678 (internal citations and

23

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 24 of 29

alterations omitted). We discern no error with the court’s findings. In sum, the court was

well within its discretion in concluding that the private interest factors favored dismissal.

The same is true of the district court’s assessment of the public interest factors in

this case. We have explained that “pertinent public interest factors are the local interest in

having localized controversies decided at home; the avoidance of complex comparative

law issues; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.”

See Tang, 656 F.3d at 252 (citing Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241 n.6). Because “this

is a case about a ship in Saudi Arabia that was allegedly damaged by a Saudi company, in

a shipyard in Saudi Arabia, pursuant to a contract to perform services in Saudi Arabia,” the

court correctly reasoned that the Saudi courts “seemingly would have a significant interest

in hearing a dispute about a contract performed in Saudi Arabia.” See AdvanFort, 704 F.

Supp. 3d at 679. And it is true that, as the court recognized, the Commonwealth of

Virginia’s interests in this case “are minimal.” Id.

We thus agree that, in the circumstances presented by this dispute — specifically,

“where the controversy’s contacts with the United States pale in comparison” to its foreign

contacts — “jury duty ought not to be imposed upon the people of the United States nor

should United States courts be clogged.” See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 679 (internal

quotation marks omitted). Virginia residents “should therefore not be saddled with

resolving” AdvanFort’s dispute. See Tang, 656 F.3d at 252.

Moreover, there is little doubt that the court would likely “encounter complex

issues” of Saudi Arabian law given the circumstances presented by AdvanFort’s claims.

See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 679. Because “[t]he forum non conveniens doctrine

24

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 25 of 29

exists largely to avoid such comparative law problems,” we agree that dismissal is

appropriate for that reason as well. See Tang, 656 F.3d at 252; see also Piper Aircraft

Co., 454 U.S. at 251 (“The doctrine of forum non conveniens . . . is designed in part to help

courts avoid conducting complex exercises in comparative law.”). Put simply, the district

court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the public interest factors favor Saudi

Arabia as the most appropriate forum.

C.

AdvanFort’s final contention challenges the district court’s denial of limited

discovery regarding what it characterizes as “critical factual disputes relevant to forum non

conveniens.” See Appellant’s Br. 62. More specifically, it sought discovery on the

adequacy or fairness of the Saudi courts, as well as the location and language of witnesses

and evidence.

Notably, the parties each presented detailed expert affidavits supporting their

positions regarding the availability and adequacy of the Saudi courts. Those affidavits

were a proper basis for resolution by the district court of Zamil’s motion to dismiss because,

as the Supreme Court has made clear, a forum non conveniens inquiry “does not necessarily

require extensive investigation, and may be resolved on affidavits presented by the parties.”

Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 529 (1988).

Moreover, Zamil — which had the burden of showing that the Saudi courts were a

more convenient forum — presented evidence regarding its witnesses and otherwise

adequately demonstrated that the interests of convenience weighed in its favor. The district

court, therefore, had “enough information to enable [it] to balance the parties’ interests” on

25

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 26 of 29

those issues without ordering further discovery. See Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 258.

In these circumstances, we are satisfied that there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s

decision to deny additional discovery, particularly where “[r]equiring extensive

investigation would defeat the purpose of [the] motion.” Id.

IV.

Pursuant to the foregoing, the district court’s dismissal of AdvanFort’s complaint

on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

26

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 27 of 29

THACKER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

As an initial matter, I agree with the majority that the district court was not precluded

from granting a forum non conveniens dismissal by virtue of the Ports Authority’s default.

But, as to the forum non conveniens analysis, I depart from the majority on a single -- but

dispositive -- issue. Dismissal for forum non conveniens requires the existence of one

alternate, adequate, and available forum. Because Saudi Arabia would require the case be

split between two courts, I would vacate the forum non conveniens dismissal. Therefore,

I respectfully dissent.

As the majority explains, “[a]t the outset of any forum non conveniens inquiry, the

court must determine whether there exists an alternate forum.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,

454 U.S. 235, 254 n.22 (1981) (emphases supplied). “[T]he alternate forum must be

available as to all defendants.” Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 731 (4th Cir. 2010)

(citation omitted) (emphases supplied). We have explained that a party seeking to

demonstrate the availability of an alternative forum must “indicate what court provides the

alternative forum” rather than “only suggest[ing] the country.” Kontoulas v. A.H. Robins

Co., Inc., 745 F.2d 312, 316 (4th Cir. 1984) (emphases in original).

Here, Zamil argues that Saudi Arabia is an adequate and available alternative forum

because “Saudi courts would have jurisdiction over both defendants.” Ante at 15 (citation

omitted). But, as we have indicated, simply naming the country is inadequate. As

AdvanFort’s Saudi legal expert explained, the Saudi Board of Grievances is the court with

“exclusive jurisdictions over administrative cases and lawsuits filed against government

27

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 28 of 29

bodies” like the Ports Authority. J.A. 242. The Board of Grievances does not have

authority over commercial entities like Zamil. AdvanFort’s Saudi legal expert explained:

Thus, if litigated in Saudi Arabia, AdvanFort’s claims against

the Saudi Ports Authority would have to be litigated before the

Board of Grievances. However, the Board of Grievances’

jurisdiction does not extend to commercial cases brought

against non-government parties. Consequently, since

AdvanFort’s claims concern conversion, breach of bailment,

negligence, and gross negligence, those claims against Zamil

would have to be litigated before a different court: the

Commercial Court. There is no forum in Saudi Arabia where

AdvanFort could bring its claims against both Defendants.

J.A. 242. *

Zamil’s legal expert did not meaningfully refute this claim. Instead, he offered only

that the Board of Grievances “allows a claimant that has submitted a lawsuit” before it “to

request that [it] involve another party in the case provided that the conditions required by

the relevant law are met.” J.A. 323. Thus, Zamil’s expert claimed that AdvanFort’s

evaluation was “not entirely accurate” because the Board of Grievances could decide to

allow the claims against Zamil to be heard there too. J.A. 324. Notably, however, Zamil’s

expert did not explain what the “conditions required by the relevant law” are, nor did he

provide an analysis or opinion as to whether those requirements could be satisfied here.

The majority posits that “[o]ur precedent . . . does not go so far as to demand that a

defendant must identify a single tribunal in a foreign jurisdiction where all claims brought

by a plaintiff may be heard and resolved.” Ante at 16. I disagree. We have explicitly

*

Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties to this appeal.

28

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 29 of 29

recognized that it is insufficient for a party seeking forum non conveniens to identify only

the country, rather than the specific court that would serve as the forum. See Kontoulas,

745 F.2d at 316. And as one of our sister circuits has explained, forum non conveniens “is

not available as a tool to split or bifurcate cases” as that “fundamentally contradicts the

‘central purpose’ of forum non conveniens because it only increases the possibility of

overlapping, piecemeal litigation that is inherently inconvenient for both the parties and

the courts.” DIRTT Env’t Solutions, Inc. v. Falkbuilt Ltd., 65 F.4th 547, 555 (10th Cir.

2023) (citations omitted).

Here, requiring AdvanFort to litigate its claims against Zamil and the Ports

Authority in separate Saudi courts creates piecemeal litigation and increases the possibility

of overlapping and inconsistent judgments. And it forces AdvanFort to incur the costs and

inconvenience associated with litigating not one, but two, cases in separate tribunals.

Given all of this, I would conclude that forum non conveniens is unavailable in this

case because there is not a single alternative forum available to all defendants. I would

vacate the district court’s dismissal and allow AdvanFort to proceed on its claims in its

home forum, the Eastern District of Virginia.

29