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 Stevens,
with whom Justice Brennan joins, dissenting.
In No. 80-848, only one question is presented for review to this Court:
“Whether, in an action in federal district court brought by foreign plaintiffs against American defendants, the plaintiffs may defeat a motion to dismiss on the ground of *262 forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied if the case were litigated in the district court is more favorable to them than the law that would be applied by the courts of their own nation.” Pet. for Cert, in No. 80-848, p. i.
In No. 80-883, the Court limited its grant of certiorari, see 450 U. S. 909 , to the same question:
“Must a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens be denied whenever the law of the alternate forum is less favorable to recovery than that which would be applied by the district court? ” Pet. for Cert, in No. 80-883, p. i.
I agree that this question should be answered in the negative. Having decided that question, I would simply remand the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration of the question whether the District Court correctly decided that Pennsylvania was not a convenient forum in which to litigate a claim against a Pennsylvania company that a plane was defectively designed and manufactured in Pennsylvania.