Master Landmark forum non conveniens decision holding that less deference is owed to a foreign plaintiff’s chosen U.S. forum and that a less favorable foreign law does not bar dismissal. with this comprehensive case brief.
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno is the Supreme Court’s leading modern articulation of forum non conveniens. The case arose from a tragic aircraft crash in Scotland but was filed in the United States to take advantage of more favorable tort law. The Court used the dispute to clarify how federal courts should evaluate motions to dismiss in favor of a foreign forum, emphasizing the twin pillars of the doctrine: availability of an adequate alternative forum and a balancing of private and public interest factors (as first set out in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert).
The decision has become the touchstone for transnational litigation strategy. It confirms that a plaintiff may not defeat a forum non conveniens dismissal merely by showing that the foreign forum’s substantive law is less favorable, and it reduces deference to a forum choice when the real parties in interest are foreign. Piper also instructs appellate courts to review such dismissals for abuse of discretion, not de novo, cementing broad trial court discretion in managing international cases.
454 U.S. 235 (U.S. Supreme Court 1981)
A small aircraft designed and manufactured by Piper Aircraft (Pennsylvania) with a propeller manufactured by Hartzell Propeller (Ohio) crashed in the Scottish Highlands, killing several Scottish citizens. The aircraft was owned and operated by Scottish entities, maintained in the United Kingdom, and all decedents and their beneficiaries were Scottish. To bring suit in the United States, a California legal secretary, Reyno, was appointed administratrix of the Scottish decedents’ estates. She filed a products-liability and negligence action in California state court against Piper and Hartzell. The case was removed to federal court and then transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Middle District of Pennsylvania (Piper’s home district). Defendants moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Scotland. The District Court granted the motion subject to conditions (including defendants’ amenability to Scottish jurisdiction and waiver of statute-of-limitations defenses). The Third Circuit reversed, reasoning in part that dismissal was improper where the substantive law of the alternative forum was less favorable to the plaintiffs and that significant weight should be given to the United States’ interest in deterring domestic manufacturers. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Did the District Court abuse its discretion in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Scotland, given that the real parties in interest were foreign and Scottish law would be less favorable to the plaintiffs than U.S. law?
Under forum non conveniens, a federal court may dismiss a case when (1) an adequate alternative forum is available (typically the defendant is amenable to process there and the forum provides some remedy), and (2) the balance of private and public interest factors identified in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert strongly favors the foreign forum. A plaintiff’s choice of forum ordinarily deserves deference, but that deference is reduced when the plaintiff (or the real parties in interest) is foreign. A less favorable change in substantive law in the alternative forum should not be given substantial weight in the analysis; only if the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory as to be no remedy at all should dismissal be denied for that reason. Appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
No. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Scotland, notwithstanding that Scottish law was less favorable to the plaintiffs and the defendants were U.S. manufacturers.
The Court reaffirmed the Gilbert framework. First, Scotland was an adequate alternative forum: defendants agreed to submit to Scottish jurisdiction and to waive limitations defenses, and Scotland provided causes of action and remedies for wrongful death and negligence (even if less generous than U.S. law). Second, private interest factors favored Scotland. The accident, physical evidence, and most key witnesses (including the pilot’s employer, maintenance personnel, and investigators) were in the United Kingdom. Many nonparty witnesses were beyond the compulsory process of a U.S. court; impleader of potentially responsible Scottish parties was not feasible in the U.S.; and transporting witnesses and evidence to Pennsylvania would be costly and inefficient. Third, public interest factors also favored Scotland. The controversy was localized in Scotland; trial in Pennsylvania would burden local jurors with a case lacking strong local ties; and a U.S. court would likely have to apply Scottish law, complicating the case and increasing the risk of legal error. Although the United States has an interest in regulating domestic manufacturers, that interest was outweighed by Scotland’s more immediate interest in adjudicating a local accident involving its citizens and operators. The Court rejected the Third Circuit’s rule that a forum non conveniens dismissal is improper whenever the law of the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff. Such a rule would invite forum shopping and undermine the doctrine. The proper inquiry focuses on convenience and judicial administration, not comparative law-shopping advantages, except where the foreign forum offers no remedy at all. The Court also clarified that the presumption favoring a plaintiff’s forum choice applies with less force when the plaintiff (or real parties in interest) is foreign. Here, Reyno’s connection to the forum was manufactured to secure favorable U.S. law; the real parties were Scottish. Finally, the Court emphasized that forum non conveniens determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and the Third Circuit erred by effectively reweighing the factors de novo rather than deferring to the District Court’s reasonable balancing.
Piper is the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case on forum non conveniens in transnational torts. It establishes that diminished deference applies to a foreign plaintiff’s forum choice; that an unfavorable change in substantive law does not bar dismissal unless the foreign remedy is nonexistent or clearly inadequate; and that trial courts have broad discretion, subject to abuse-of-discretion review. The case is a staple for civil procedure and international litigation, guiding courts in managing cross-border cases, preventing forum shopping, and channeling localized disputes to the jurisdictions with the strongest connections.
Private interest factors include access to sources of proof, availability and cost of compulsory process for unwilling witnesses, possibility of viewing premises, enforceability of judgments, and other practical problems affecting trial efficiency. Public interest factors include administrative burden on courts, local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, the unfairness of imposing jury duty on an unrelated forum, and the advantages of having a forum apply its own familiar law.
Piper holds that a less favorable foreign law is not a valid reason to deny forum non conveniens dismissal. Only if the foreign forum offers no remedy or a remedy so inadequate as to be tantamount to no remedy should the court refuse dismissal on that basis. The doctrine focuses on convenience and judicial administration, not the plaintiff’s strategic law-shopping.
Less than usual. While there is normally a strong presumption favoring the plaintiff’s choice, that presumption applies with less force when the plaintiff (or the real parties in interest) is foreign. The Court reasons that a foreign plaintiff’s forum choice is less likely to be based on convenience and more likely to reflect forum shopping.
The District Court conditioned dismissal on defendants’ consent to Scottish jurisdiction and their waiver of statute-of-limitations defenses in Scotland, ensuring that Scotland was an available and adequate forum. Conditional dismissals of this type are common to prevent prejudice to the plaintiff upon refiling abroad.
Abuse of discretion. Appellate courts should not reweigh the Gilbert factors de novo but should defer to the trial court’s reasonable balancing, intervening only if the decision falls outside the range of permissible choices.
Piper Aircraft v. Reyno anchors the modern forum non conveniens framework, directing courts to prioritize judicial efficiency and the locus of the dispute over comparative advantage in substantive law. By reducing deference to foreign plaintiffs’ forum choices and rejecting a per se rule based on less favorable foreign law, the Court safeguarded the doctrine’s function against forum shopping and ensured that transnational cases gravitate toward the jurisdictions with the most significant connections.
For students and practitioners, Piper is indispensable when assessing transnational litigation strategy. It teaches how to structure the adequacy showing, how to balance Gilbert’s factors, and how to craft or resist conditional dismissals. It also reminds appellate advocates of the abuse-of-discretion standard that heavily shapes outcomes in this area.