Piper Aircraft Co. V. Reyno - Case Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S.Pa., 1981.) Samantha was uninvited on the last day of civil practice, the first semester of her 1L year. The case briefly saved her life for that cold call, and it was her proudest cold call.
Facts: (I get really detailed with my facts in my summaries for this class in particular, and for other classes I usually only have 3 sentences.)
Piper Aircraft Co. V. Reyno
Issue: When all the witnesses and evidence are in another country, if a case is dismissed based on forum non conveniens, the judges of the other country will become more involved in the problem because it will be inconvenient for the parties to try it. In the jurisdiction where it is brought, does the law of the other country apply?
Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. V. Linde Air Products Co., 336 U.s. 271 (1949)
Process Posture: (Note if your teacher asks for Process Posture, because the only teacher who really cared was my Civil Procedure teacher. You can skip including this section.)
Rule: A plaintiff cannot defeat a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens by showing that the substantive law applicable in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiffs than in the present forum.
H&R: Yes. The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed. Rayno lost. The district court correctly determined that because the real parties in interest were foreigners, the presumption in the defendant's forum selection factor applied less than maximum force. He did not act unreasonably in determining that the point of personal interest in an interest was foreign. He did not act unreasonably in concluding that the public interest favored a trial in Scotland.
Forum inconvenient: A doctrine that allows a court to dismiss a case in its jurisdiction if another jurisdiction is more convenient to hear the case.
Va Vol 31 No 4 April 2003 By Eaa Vintage Aircraft Association
Example 1: (TF stands for "trigger facts" and I use them for more complex cases.)
Piper: A plaintiff cannot defeat a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens by showing that the substantive law applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiffs than in the current forum. Facts: A small commercial aircraft crashed in the Scottish Highlands during a charter flight from Blackpool to Perth. The pilot and 5 passengers died instantly. The aircraft was a twin-engine Piper Aztec manufactured by Piper Aircraft Company in Pennsylvania. Propellers are manufactured by Hartzell Propeller, Inc. in Ohio. The British Department of Commerce launched an investigation shortly after the accident. They found no evidence of faulty equipment and indicated that pilot error may have contributed to the crash. The pilot, who had obtained his commercial pilot's license three months earlier, was flying at an altitude significantly lower than the minimum altitude in his company's operations manual.
Plaintiff's Argument: Reino expressly concedes that the suit against Piper and Hartzell was filed in the United States because certain laws regarding liability, capacity to sue, and damages are more favorable to its position than in Scotland.
Procedural History: Reino sued Piper and Hartzell in California Superior Court. The suit was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case was then transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Hartzell and Piper sought to dismiss the action on grounds of forum non conveniens. The district court accepted these pleas. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for trial. The Supreme Court granted the certificate.
Okay, I'm Intrigued...
Issue: Can a plaintiff defeat a motion to dismiss for non-forum convenience on the ground that the law of the alternative forum is less favorable?
Rule: A plaintiff cannot defeat a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens by showing that the underlying law applied in the alternative forum is not more favorable to him than that in the forum.
Reason: The possibility of an adverse change in the law in Scotland should not bar dismissal. The court held that the plaintiffs could not defeat a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens grounds, merely by showing that the substantive law applied in the alternative forum did not favor the plaintiffs more than the chosen forum. A change in ordinarily substantive law should not be given definite or significant weight in a non-forum convenience inquiry. Scotland was given an appropriate forum where there would be fewer evidentiary problems if the case were tried in Scotland; The inability to plead the third party defendants clearly favored holding the trial in Scotland; and the public interest favored a trial in Scotland, where the accident occurred in its airspace, the dead were all Scottish, and all the prospective plaintiffs and defendants, except the manufacturers, were either Scottish or English.
Company history: Reno sued Piper and Hartzell in the California Supreme Court. The case was s
Piper Aircraft Co. V. Reyno; Hartzell Propeller, Inc. V. Reyno. 102 S.ct. 252
ISSUE: Whether a plaintiff may defeat a motion to dismiss, even if it is not a forum, solely on the ground that
Ruling: Plaintiff cannot defeat motion to dismiss forum I rely on.
The basic law applied in the alternative forum is not favorable to him
Reason: Possibility of adverse change in law in Scotland and the same should not be prohibited
Civ Pro Rules And Tools
Termination of employment. The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not defeat the motion to dismiss on the grounds of non-forum
Less favorable to litigants than forum selection because of potential for change
Set up if the trial is held in Scotland; Inability to sue potential third-party defendants We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or learn how to manage your cookie settings.
A preview is provided as no summary is available for this content. For information on how to access this content, please use the Get Access link above.
Dow Chemical Co. V. Castro Alfaro
American Journal of International Law, Volume 76, Issue 2, April 1982, p. 394 - 396
Access Options You can access the full version of this content using one of the access options below. (Login options will check for institutional or personal access. If you don't have access you may need to purchase content.)
[1] These cases were initially brought in the Superior Court of California. At petitioner's request, they were removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and then transferred to Pennsylvania.
The court considered "the relative ease of access to evidence; the availability of the compulsory process for the attendance of unwilling witnesses and the cost of obtaining the attendance of willing witnesses; the possibility of viewing the site, whether it would be appropriate for the viewing action; and other practical issues that make the trial of a case easier, faster, and cheaper." Public interest factors include burden on the court calendar; local interest in local debates being decided at home; A desire to bring diversity proceedings in a forum convenient to the governing law; avoid unnecessary conflicts of law or application of foreign law; And it is unfair to impose jury duty on citizens in unrelated forums. 330 U.S.C. at 508–09.
Pdf) The Judgment Enforceability Factor In Forum Non Conveniens Analysis
Aircraft appraisal online, free aircraft appraisal, aircraft appraisal services, aircraft appraisal cost, aircraft appraisal jobs, aircraft appraisal course, aircraft appraisal training, business appraisal, rolex appraisal, appraisal software, 409a appraisal, aircraft appraisal report
Post A Comment:
0 comments so far,add yours