244 F.3d 1279 (11th Cir. 2001), 00-11383, Satz v McDonnell
|Docket Nº:||00-11383, 00-11385, 00-11386, 00-11839 and 00-11840.|
|Citation:||244 F.3d 1279|
|Party Name:||Veronica SATZ, as personal representative of the Estate of Marcos Satz, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORPORATION, a corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Page 1280 Maria Silvina Rumachella, as personal representative of the Estate of Viviana Teresita Rumachella, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McDonnell Douglas Corporation, a|
|Case Date:||March 22, 2001|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit|
April 3, 2001.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. (Nos. 99-01425-CV-SH, 98-02356-CV-SH, 98-02354-CV-SH, 99-01426-CV-SH, 98- 02355-CV-SH), Shelby Highsmith, Judge.
Before TJOFLAT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and SHAPIRO[*], District Judge.
Veronica Satz, personal representative of the Estate of Marcos Satz, deceased, and the four other plaintiffs in this action (all personal representatives) appeal the district court's order of dismissal upon the ground of forum non conveniens. We find no reversible error and therefore affirm.
This case arises out of the crash of Austral Airlines Flight No. 2553 near Nuevo Berlin, Uruguay, on October 10, 1997. The flight originated in Posadas, Argentina, and was en route to Buenos Aires, Argentina. The crash killed all 74 persons on board, including the plaintiffs' decedents. Five personal representatives of the estates of the deceased passengers filed civil actions, based on diversity of citizenship, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.1 Each plaintiff claimed that the defendant, McDonnell Douglas Corporation ("MDC"), was liable for the wrongful death of his or her decedent based on product liability for the defective design of the DC-9 model aircraft involved in the crash and MDC's negligence in the design, manufacture, assembly, sale, distribution, and provision of services to operators of the aircraft.
MDC, arguing that Argentina was the proper forum for the cases, moved to dismiss the actions based upon forum non conveniens. The district court granted MDC's motion to dismiss, and subsequently denied the plaintiffs' motions to reconsider
and vacate. The plaintiffs filed timely notices of appeal to this court.
"We review a dismissal based on forum non conveniens only for abuse of discretion." Magnin v. Teledyne Continental Motors, 91 F.3d 1424, 1429 (11th Cir.1996). When a district court "has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and [when] its balancing of those factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference." Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257, 102 S.Ct. 252, 266, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).
The plaintiffs assert that the district court abused its discretion in this case because: it erred in finding that Argentina was an available and adequate alternative forum; it did not require MDC to prove that relevant...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP