Clerides v. Boeing Co.

Decision Date16 July 2008
Docket NumberNo. 07-3810.,07-3810.
Citation534 F.3d 623
PartiesCharis CLERIDES and Soteroulla Hadjikyriyakou, Estate of Nicos Karakostas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOEING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Lexi J. Hazam (argued), San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Bruce D. Campbell (argued), Perkins Coie, Seattle, WA, William T. Cahill, Perkins Coie, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before RIPPLE, KANNE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

RIPPLE, Circuit Judge.

Following a tragic airplane crash, Charis Clerides and Soteroulla Hadjikyriyakou, personal representatives of the estate of Nicos Karakostas, brought an action against Boeing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.1 Boeing previously had moved to dismiss other actions arising out of this occurrence on the ground of forum non conveniens, contending that either Cyprus or Greece would provide a more convenient forum. The district court had granted the motion. The personal representatives of Nicos Karakostas stipulated to a forum non conveniens dismissal but reserved the right to appeal the district court's decision.2 Because we believe that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the motion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I BACKGROUND

The underlying facts are not disputed. On August 14, 2005, a 737-300 aircraft, designed and built by Boeing, was scheduled to fly from Larnaca, Cyprus to Athens, Greece as Helios Airways Flight 522. After takeoff, the aircraft failed properly to pressurize. As a result, the crew and passengers lost consciousness and asphyxiated; the plane crashed near Athens, Greece, when it ran out of fuel. Nicos Karakostas, a citizen and resident of Cyprus, was one of the passengers killed during the crash.

Helios Airways is incorporated and based in Cyprus and, at the time of the accident,3 operated four aircraft on flights out of airports in Cyprus. The Cyprus Department of Civil Aviation has regulatory oversight responsibilities for Helios' operations. Helios maintains that the United States' courts lack subject matter and personal jurisdiction over it and has refused to produce voluntarily in the United States any evidence or witnesses in its possession, custody or control.

Boeing's Commercial Airplanes division is headquartered in the State of Washington. Boeing maintains in Washington custody and control of documents and witnesses relevant to the design, manufacture, certification, testing and customer support services of the 737-300 model aircraft. As a condition of the district court granting the forum non conveniens dismissal, Boeing agreed to make available in Cyprus and Greece all evidence and witnesses under its control.

After the crash, the Greek Air Accident Investigation & Aviation Safety Board ("Accident Safety Board") conducted the official accident investigation. Representatives from the Cyprus Air Accident & Events Investigation Committee and the United States National Transportation Safety Board ("NTSB") also participated. Boeing was a technical advisor to the NTSB, providing assistance as requested. The official investigation records, the individuals who conducted the investigation and autopsies and the recovered aircraft wreckage all are located in Greece. Although most of the investigative activities occurred in Greece, certain discrete activities occurred in France, Germany and the United States.

On October 10, 2006, the Accident Safety Board delivered its Final Report; the report attributed the direct causes of the accident to Helios flight crew errors. This report was turned over to the Athens criminal prosecutor, who initiated a Greek criminal investigation for homicide by intent. The Accident Safety Board found that the flight crew had failed to recognize that the aircraft's pressurization system was set to the incorrect manual position. Because the system was in manual, the aircraft did not automatically pressurize. The Final Report also found that the flight crew failed to recognize three warnings that signaled that the aircraft was not pressurizing. The Final Report concluded that human error on the part of the flight and cabin crew contributed to the failure to recognize the pressurization problems.

The Final Report identified several secondary causes of the accident, including Helios' deficiencies in organization, quality management and safety culture, and the Cyprus Department of Civil Aviation's inadequate execution of its oversight responsibilities. The Accident Safety Board also criticized Boeing's checklists, the 737's cabin altitude warning horn and Boeing's inadequate remedial response to prior pressurization incidents. After the publication of the Final Report, Helios agreed not to contest liability in lawsuits filed against it in Greece or Cyprus and to produce in Greece and Cyprus all witnesses, documents and other relevant evidence.

Cyprus also undertook investigations into the accident. Cyprus' Attorney General began a criminal investigation immediately after the accident, and the Cypriot police collected relevant documents and statements from Cypriot witnesses. The Cyprus Air Accident Committee also began an investigation. Both investigations were ongoing when this appeal was filed. To facilitate the Cypriot criminal investigation, the Cyprus Council of Ministers appointed a Commission of Inquiry. The Commission was charged with investigating the events that led to the accident. It took testimony from many witnesses and collected relevant documents, all of which are located in Cyprus.

In August 2007, the personal representatives of the estate of Nicos Karakostas sued Boeing in the Northern District of Illinois. At the time they filed suit, a number of wrongful death actions arising out of the crash already had been filed against Boeing in the United States. The Multidistrict Litigation Panel had consolidated the suits in the Northern District of Illinois for pretrial proceedings. Boeing had moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, contending that either Cyprus or Greece would provide a more convenient forum, and in February 2007, the district court had granted the motion. The cases related to the crash therefore already having been dismissed, the personal representatives of Nicos Karakostas entered a stipulation consenting to the forum non conveniens dismissal but reserving the right to challenge that dismissal on appeal. The plaintiffs then timely appealed.

At the time this appeal was filed, legal proceedings related to the accident were pending both in Greece and the United States. In Greece, Helios sued Boeing in the Athens Multi-member Court of First Instance, alleging that several defects in the airplane had caused the accident. Helios sought consequential damages for lost future earnings and harm to its reputation. In addition, after the district court issued its forum non conveniens dismissal in this litigation, twenty-seven wrongful death actions were filed in Greece against Boeing and, in some cases, Helios, including an action filed against Boeing and Helios to recover for the wrongful death of Nicos Karakostas.

II DISCUSSION

"The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a trial court to dismiss a suit over which it would normally have jurisdiction if it best serves the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice." In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 420 F.3d 702, 703 (7th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Federal courts have the discretion to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non conveniens when an adequate available forum exists and "trial in the chosen forum would establish oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant out of all proportion to plaintiff's convenience, or the chosen forum is inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own administrative and legal problems." Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Co., ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 1190, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007) (alterations omitted) (quotation omitted). "Dismissal for forum non conveniens reflects a court's assessment of a range of considerations, most notably the convenience to the parties and the practical difficulties that can attend the adjudication of a dispute in a certain locality." Id. (alteration omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The leading case recognizing and delineating the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens is Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). See In re Factor VIII or IX Concentrate Blood Prods. Litig., 484 F.3d 951, 955 (7th Cir.2007). Gulf Oil established that both private and public interest factors ought to inform a court's forum non conveniens decision. 330 U.S. at 508-09, 67 S.Ct. 839. The private interest factors that a court may consider include "the relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive." Id. at 508, 67 S.Ct. 839. The enforceability of the judgment, if one is obtained, is also a private interest factor. Id. The public interest factors include the administrative difficulties stemming from court congestion; the local interest in having localized disputes decided at home; the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflicts of laws or in the application of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. Id. at 508-09, 67 S.Ct. 839. A district court must be accorded great latitude in weighing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
60 cases
  • Maui Jim, Inc. v. Smartbuy Guru Enters.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 10 Mayo 2019
    ...to the action; and [5] all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. Clerides v. Boeing Co. , 534 F.3d 623, 628 (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gilbert , 330 U.S. at 508, 67 S. Ct. at 843 ). The public interest factors to consider are:[1] the administrat......
  • Behrens v. Arconic, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 16 Septiembre 2020
    ...that is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims is mostly under party control and is electronically transferrable. Compare Clerides v. Boeing Co., 534 F.3d 623, 629 (7th Cir. 2008) (finding that the district court acted well within its discretion in concluding that the ease of access to proof factor......
  • Greene v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 26 Agosto 2016
    ...rarely be disturbed.") (quoting Gulf Oil , 330 U.S. at 504, 67 S.Ct. 839 ) (internal quotation marks omitted); Clerides v. Boeing Co. , 534 F.3d 623, 628 (7th Cir.2008) ("As a general rule, a plaintiff's choice of forum should be disturbed only if the balance of public and private interest ......
  • Fletcher v. Doig
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 30 Septiembre 2014
    ...of justice." Stroitelstvo Bulgaria Ltd. v. Bulgarian–Am. Enter. Fund, 589 F.3d 417, 421 (7th Cir.2009) ; see also Clerides v. Boeing Co., 534 F.3d 623, 627–28 (7th Cir.2008) ; In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 420 F.3d 702, 703 (7th Cir.2005). "A federal court has discretion to dismiss a c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Chapter § 1.03 TRAVEL ABROAD, SUE AT HOME
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Travel Law
    • Invalid date
    ...citizen of Guyana injured while attending camp in Trinidad sues in U.S. and in Trinidad). Seventh Circuit: Clerides v. Boeing Company, 534 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008) ("legal proceedings related to the accident were pending both in Greece and the United States . . . twenty-seven wrongful death......
  • Aviation Law: a Survey of Recent Trends and Developments - Jonathan R. Friedman and Joshua S. Wood
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 61-2, January 2010
    • Invalid date
    ...at 287-88 (citing Murray, 81 F.3d at 293). 173. Id. at 288-89. 174. Id. at 288. 175. Id. at 289 (internal quotation marks omitted). 176. 534 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2008). 177. Id. at 625-26. 178. Id. at 626. 179. Id. at 629. 180. Id. 181. Id. 182. Id. 183. Convention on the Taking of Evidence A......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT