Leslie Dicus----Forum Non Conveniens
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981)
Facts: In July 1976, a commercial aircraft crashed in Scotland, killing the pilot and five passengers instantly. The aircraft was
manufactured by Piper Aircraft Co. (“Piper”), and the propellers were manufactured by Hartzell Propeller, Inc. (“Hartzell”). A
California probate court appointed Gaynell Reno administratrix of the passengers' estates. Reyno was the legal secretary of the
attorney who filed the lawsuit, and she did not know the decedents. Reyno commenced a wrongful death lawsuit against Piper
and Hartzell in the Superior Court of California, alleging strict liability and negligence. Reyno admits to filing the case in the U.S.
due to favorable laws.
Procedural History: Piper moved to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
under 28 U.S.C §1404(a), which the district court later granted. After the suit had been transferred, Hartzell and Piper moved
to dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens. The District Court granted the motion based on the Gilbert
balancing test. To guide the court’s discretion, the court provided a list of “private interest factors” and “public interest factors”
that affect forum convenience. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case because the district court abused its
discretion. The dismissal was improper where the foreign jurisdiction laws were less favorable to the plaintiff. The Supreme
Court of the United States granted certiorari.
Issue: Whether dismissal of a claim on the grounds of forum non conveniens should be overturned if substantive law is
unfavorable to the plaintiff.
Holding: No, the district court had sound and correct reasoning to dismiss the present case, and the appellate court should not
have considered substantive law in their determination.
Rule:


“Dismissal will ordinarily be appropriate where trial in the plaintiff’s chosen forum imposes a heavy burden on the
defendant or the court, and where the plaintiff is unable to offer any specific reasons of convenience supporting his
choice.” Dismissal may be granted if the plaintiff intends to take advantage of favorable law or harass the defendant.
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1947).
o Dismissal may be necessary when foreign law needs to be applied.
o There is substantial interest in having localized controversies decided in home jurisdiction.
Forum non conveniens is determined by the trial court and may only be overturned when discretion is abused; “where
the court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where the balancing of these factors is
reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference. Gilbert; Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518
(1947).
Reasoning: Forum non conveniens (FNC) inquiries should not heavily consider the potential change to substantive law; if the
court permitted this, the doctrine would become useless. All federal jurisdictions have established precedents that allow for
dismissal on FNC, even if the alternative forum has less favorable laws for the plaintiff's recovery. Upholding the appellate
court's decision would have practical consequences. Trial courts would have to interpret foreign jurisdictions' laws and
compare the legal analyses of different forums. Foreign plaintiffs would find American courts more appealing, leading to
congestion in the court system. Changes to substantive law may be heavily considered if the remedy offered by the alternative
forum is unsatisfactory and inadequate. However, remedies provided by Scottish courts fall out of scope, and the decedent's
relatives have viable remedy. Furthermore, ordinarily, there is a strong presumption of the plaintiff’s choice of forum; however,
that presumption lessens when the plaintiff(s) are foreign. FNC aims to ensure a convenient venue, but a foreign plaintiff has
less interest than a resident. “The trial court determined private interests” in this case. The District Court reasonably stated
that a trial in Scotland would reduce evidentiary concerns, as much of the evidence is not in America. Both Piper and Hartzell
expressed concerns in their affidavits about the difficulties of interviewing witnesses if the trial were held in the U.S. If the trial
were held in Scotland, third-party defendants could join the case, further evidencing convenience; therefore, the District
Court’s analysis for its holding was reasonable. Additionally, the District Court properly weighed public interests. Pennsylvania
law would apply to Piper and Scottish law to Hartzell, which would confuse a jury. According to Gilbert, if the court would have
to apply foreign law, it would likely lead to dismissal. It is better to resolve this case in Scotland's jurisdiction as they have a
strong interest in it. American interest, in this case, is immaterial. The appellate court’s judgment was reversed.
Leslie Dicus----Forum Non Conveniens