concluding, although plaintiff “would have greater access to sources of proof relevant to her strict liability and negligence theories if trial were held here ...,” that “the District Court did not act unreasonably in concluding that fewer evi-dentiary problems would be posed if the trial were held in Scotland. A large proportion of the relevant evidence is located in Great Britain”
How later courts described this case
- concluding, although plaintiff “would have greater access to sources of proof relevant to her strict liability and negligence theories if trial were held here ...,” that “the District Court did not act unreasonably in concluding that fewer evi-dentiary problems would be posed if the trial were held in Scotland. A large proportion of the relevant evidence is located in Great Britain”
- holding that "[w]hen [a plaintiff's] home forum has been chosen, it is reasonable to assume that this choice is convenient. When the plaintiff is foreign, however, this assumption is much less reasonable. Because the central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff's choice deserves less deference"
- explaining that it is “not necessary” that a defendant seeking forum non conveniens dismissal “submit affidavits identifying the witnesses they would call and the testimony these witnesses would provide if the trial were held in the alternative forum” but rather need only provide “enough information to enable the District Court to balance the parties’ interests”
- concluding that “this district is clearly more convenient for Plaintiffs than the Western District of North Carolina” because now-former plaintiffs lived and worked in this district, the particular vending machine from which those plaintiffs allegedly made purchases was located in this district, and their claims were based partly on Missouri law
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by Myers v. Boeing Company, 115 Wash. 2d 123 (1990)
Finally, we decline to adopt Reyno because it simply is not necessary.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading, Inc., 357 Ill. App. 3d 723 (2005)
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419, 102 S. Ct. 252 (1981), is also distinguishable.
Distinguished by Ellis v. AAR Parts Trading Inc. Modified on Denial of Rehearing - replaces original opinion filed 2/4/05 (2005)
, 454 U.S. 235, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419, 102 S. Ct. 252 (1981), is also distinguishable.
The opinion
Justice White,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join Parts I and II of the Court’s opinion. However, like Justice Brennan and Justice Stevens, I would not proceed to deal with the issues addressed in Part III. To that extent, I am in dissent.