X hits on this document

63 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

13 / 23

5

application to the facts of this case, which does not warrant granting the writ.

Second,

the

Court

of

Appeals

determined

that

the

District Court abused its discretion because it misapprehended the nature of the claims before it. The Second Circuit is the only other circuit that has reviewed a district court’s order on a motion to dismiss where the lower court has misconstrued the nature of the plaintiff’s claim. In a line of cases consistent with the Court of Appeals’ opinion in this case, the Second Circuit has repeatedly held that when a district court dismisses for forum non conveniens based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the underlying facts of the case, reversal is warranted. See DiRienzo v. Philip Servs. Corp, 294 F.3d 21, 33 (2d Cir. 2002) (“Because the Gilbert test is so fact-specific, a district court’s erroneous understanding of facts central to a case can preclude a reasonable balancing of the Gilbert factors and form the basis for reversal on appeal.”); R. Maganlal & Co. v. M.G. Chem. Co., Inc., 942 F.2d 164, 168 (2d Cir. 1991) (holding that the district court abused its discretion in balancing the Gilbert factors because that court misunderstood the nature of plaintiff’s complaint); Overseas Programming Co., Ltd. v.

1(...continued) 2001); Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., 224 F.3d 142, 146 (2d Cir. 2000); Nowak v. Tak How Investments, Ltd., 94 F.3d 708, 719 (1st Cir. 1996); Rivendell Forest Prods., Ltd. v. Canadian Pac. Ltd., 2 F.3d 990, 993 (10th Cir. 1993); Reid- Walen v. Hansen, 933 F.2d 1390, 1394 (8th Cir. 1991); Lony v.

  • E.

    I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 886 F.2d 628, 632 (3d Cir.

    • 1989)

      ; Kontoulas v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 745 F.2d 312, 316

(4th Cir. 1984); Pain v. United Tech. Corp., 637 F.2d 775, 784 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

Document info
Document views63
Page views63
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 19:39:02 UTC 2017
Pages23
Paragraphs256
Words5909

Comments