Ahmed v. Boeing Co.
| Decision Date | 23 November 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1446,83-1446 |
| Parties | Saleem AHMED, et al., Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. The BOEING COMPANY, Defendant, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
Robert Bordon, Everett, on brief, for plaintiffs, appellants.
Robert C. Gerrard, Boston, Mass., with whom Edward N. Perry, Washington, D.C., Bowker, Elmes, Perkins, Mecsas & Gerrard, Boston, Mass., Richard C. Coyle, Perkins, Coie, Stone, Olsen & Williams, Seattle, Wash., were on brief, for defendant, appellee.
Before COFFIN, Circuit Judge, GIBSON, * Senior Circuit Judge, and BREYER, Circuit Judge.
The appellants in this case are relatives of twenty-two Pakistani citizens who were killed when their Pakistanian International Airline flight, en route from Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, to Karachi, Pakistan, crashed near Jeddah. Appellants brought suit in Massachusetts against Boeing, the Washington-based maker of the airplane. The district court accepted a carefully detailed recommendation from the magistrate to dismiss the suit, on grounds of forum non conveniens, provided that Boeing agree to appear as defendant in either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, not to assert any statute of limitations defense other than those available if the case remained in Massachusetts, to make available witnesses and other evidence, and to pay any judgment rendered against it. The plaintiffs appeal this conditional dismissal.
This case is on all fours with Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 102 S.Ct. 252, 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981). There, the Supreme Court reiterated the doctrine it had set forth in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947), and Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947), that
when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear the case, and when trial in the chosen forum would 'establish ... oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant ... out of all proportion to plaintiff's convenience' or when the 'chosen forum [is] inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own administrative and legal problems,' the court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, dismiss the case.
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. at 241, 102 S.Ct. at 258. The Piper Court reiterated the list of "private interest factors" and "public interest factors" that a court is to weigh in deciding whether to apply the forum non conveniens doctrine. And, it stated explicitly that the
forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. It may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion; where the court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference.
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. at 257, 102 S.Ct. at 266.
The Piper Court found "reasonable" a district court decision to dismiss a tort action brought by relatives of British citizens killed when their American-made airplane crashed in Scotland. The Court reversed a court of appeals determination that less favorable substantive law warranted keeping the plaintiff's case in the United States.
We can find no material distinction between Piper and this case. As in Piper, the district court (and the magistrate) balanced the relevant factors. As in Piper, comparative witness and evidence availability, the place of the accident, the nationality of the victims, comparative judicial familiarity with the likely applicable law, all cut strongly in favor of trial abroad. As in Piper, the dismissal is conditioned upon the defendant facilitating that foreign trial.
The only difference appellants raise here consists of the fact that Pakistanian International Airlines has already paid to each of eighteen of the twenty-two plaintiffs 100,000 Saudi riyals (approximately $30,000), known as the "diah" or "blood money," in "settlement" of their claim. This fact, according to appellants, means that this case presents what the Piper court called a "rare circumstance" in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stangvik v. Shiley Inc.
...apportion limited judicial resources. (See Sibaja v. Dow Chemical Co. (11th Cir.1985) 757 F.2d 1215, 1217, fn. 4; Ahmed v. Boeing Co. (1st Cir.1983) 720 F.2d 224, 225-226; Cheng v. Boeing Co. (9th Cir.1983) 708 F.2d 1406, 1409; Vaz Borralho v. Keydril Co. (5th Cir.1983) 696 F.2d 379, 391; C......
-
Alves v. Siegel's Broadway Auto Parts, Inc.
...tort takes place,'" and then devoted several pages of text to determining where that event occurred); see also Ahmed v. Boeing Co., 720 F.2d 224, 226 (1st Cir.1983) (interpreting Pevoski to indicate that "in tort cases Massachusetts generally follows doctrine of lex loci delicti"); Continen......
-
Mercier v. Sheraton Intern., Inc.
...conditions imposed in the order of dismissal. 6 Cf. Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 257 n. 25, 102 S.Ct. at 267 n. 25; Ahmed v. Boeing Co., 720 F.2d 224, 225 (1st Cir.1983) (conditional dismissal sufficient to cure alleged inadequacies in alternative available forum). Although the Merciers cont......
-
Imamura v. Gen. Elec. Co.
...they can win through either of these routes is inadequate. A remedy is inadequate only if it is "basically unjust." Ahmed v. Boeing Co., 720 F.2d 224, 226 (1st Cir. 1983). Although Plaintiffs contend that judgments and settlements directly from TEPCO or through the ADR Center are not as hig......
-
Foreign corporations: forum non conveniens and change of venue.
...1058 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 962 (1991). (11.) 677 F.Supp. 803 (E.D. Pa. 1987), aff'd, 383 F.2d 1206 (3d Cir. 1988). (12.) 720 F.2d 224 (I st Cir. 1983). (13.) 708 F.2d 1406 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1017 (1983). (14.) 637 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 45......