X hits on this document

60 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

15 / 23

7

governing

law.

Id.

at

508-09.

Dismissal

for

forum

non

conveniens should only be granted if the balance is “strongly in

favor

of

the

defendant.”

Id.

at

508.

The Court of Appeals properly gave deference to Ms.

Ito’s choice to sue in her home forum, which the District Court failed to do. Pet. App. 3a (citing Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 255). Every court of appeals to consider the question has agreed that a plaintiff’s choice to sue in her home forum is entitled to significant deference.2 The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the District Court abused its discretion in failing to accord proper deference to Ms. Ito’s choice of home forum, and its reweighing of factors to give proper deference to Ms. Ito’s choice, is thus consistent with the holdings of the other courts of appeals, as well as this Court’s opinions in Gilbert and

Koster.

2See Duha, 448 F.3d at 873-74; Gross v. British Broadcasting Corp., 386 F.3d 224, 231 (2d Cir. 2004); SME Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097, 1106 (11th Cir. 2004); Lony v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co., 935 F.2d 604, 609 (3d Cir. 1991); Reid-Walen, 933 F.2d at 1394-95; Lockman Found. v. Evangelical Alliance Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 1991); Quintero v. Klaveness Ship Lines, 914 F.2d 717, 727 (5th Cir. 1990); Royal Bed & Spring Co., Inc. v. Famossul Industria e Comercio de Moveis Ltda., 906 F.2d 45, 52 (1st Cir. 1990); Gschwind v. Cessna Aircraft Co., No. 97-3164, 1998 WL 654174, at *2 (10th Cir. Sept. 18, 1998).

Document info
Document views60
Page views60
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 03:42:03 UTC 2017
Pages23
Paragraphs256
Words5909

Comments