 |
|
|
|
 |
|
||
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
 |
|
||
| CASES OF INTEREST | |||||||||
| click here to go back to the Cases of Interest | |||||||||
| PROCEDURAL ISSUES/ FOREIGN LITIGANT : JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES/ APPLICABLE DAMAGES LAW | |||||||||
| Issue: Choice of jurisdiction/ egregious delay/ applicable damages law | |||||||||
| Issue: Forum non conveniens/ lack of relationship of the parties and the dispute to plaintiff's choice of forum | |||||||||
Issue: Choice of jurisdiction/ egregious delay/ applicable damages law |
|||||||||
| In re Urvashi Bhatnagar, an Infant by her Mother and Natural Guardian,Kalpana Bhatnagar; Kalpana Bhatnagar, Individually vs.Surrendra Overseas Limited; Apeejay Lines, in personam; M.V. APJ Karan, her engines, boilers, tackle, etc. in rem et als 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Nos. 93-2059 and 93-2076 1995
|
|||||||||
| Q.1 Can extreme delay in an alternative forum render that forum inadequate for purposes of assessing a forum non conveniens issue? |
|||||||||
| A. Yes. Delays of egregious magnitude in the alternative forum would render the remedy clearly inadequate as a matter of law. | |||||||||
| Q.2 Should the principles governing tort awards of "non-pecuniary" or "general" damages of the foreign jurisdiction be applicable? |
|||||||||
| A. Non-pecuniary damages must be assessed in accordance with the law of the foreign jurisdiction. In 1991, the minor plaintiff was injured on board the appellant vessel while it was steaming in international waters. Plaintiffs. Indian nationals, sought medical assistance in New York and overstayed their temporary visas. In 1992 plaintiffs sued appellants in federal court in New York under the court's admiralty jurisdiction, then transferred the action to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, when the vessel was docked at the Port of Philadelphia in October 1992. Appellants an Indian shipping company and an Indian vessel, appealed from final judgment -in -rem in favor of plaintiffs. The appeals court upheld the district court, which in its discretion declined to dismiss the action because the alternate forum, India, was not better suited to adjudicate the controversy. The egregious delays in the Indian legal system with litigation taking up to a quarter of a century to resolve, made the remedy "inadequate and unsatisfactory". back to the top |
|
Issue: Forum non conveniens/ lack of relationship of the parties and the dispute to plaintiff's choice of forum |
H.R.H. PRINCE FAISAL BIN KHALID BIN ABDULAZIZ SAUD v PIA INVESTMENTS LIMITED, PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION, |
07 Civ. 5603 (NRB) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92119 Q. Can a plaintiff prevail in forum shopping if an alternative adequate forum is available? |
A. The court will weigh several factors in exercising its inherent power to decline jurisdiction where the plaintiff's chosen forum imposes a heavy burden on the defendant or the court and where the plaintiff has no specific reason of convenience supporting his choice. |
Saudi citizen commenced action in New York against corporations organized under foreign law, with principal places of business overseas; with no relevant witnesses or underlying documentation in New York ; with all the alleged actions occurring abroad; and with the foreign applicable law. The court considered that since foreign law will apply the foreign court would have a strong interest in interpreting the controlling provisions; that the foreign court was capable of litigating the dispute; and that the remedies available in the foreign courts were satisfactory. Since there was an adequate alternative form capable of litigating the dispute the court dismissed the suit. back to the top |
|
|