Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981)

a.       Facts-

                                                              i.      Plane manufacturer in PA, propeller manufacturer in OH

                                                            ii.      Rest of Δs are overseas…and got sued in the UK

                                                          iii.      CA is

1.      where the cause of action is filed

2.      location of probate Ct

                                                          iv.       

b.      Notes-

                                                              i.      Forum Non Conveniens

1.      Not a Rule, but a judicial doctrine

2.      S 1404 (a): The Ct can sua sponte (on its own) to produce a forum non conveniens (transfer)

3.      Venue: The case has already been filed, and can continue in a different venue

a.       The statute of limitation is tolled (stopped) during the transfer

4.      Case must be started anew if case dismissed for forum non conveniens

a.       During forum non conveniens, the statute of limitation is not tolled…further, the Ct will usually stipulate that Δ cannot bring a statute of limitation defense during a dismissal

5.      Even though the laws in one place might be “better” than another, this CANNOT be the basis for a forum non conveniens

a.       It’s not that the laws are not good enough, but that there is NO laws to bring an action (inadequate or unsatisfactory remedy)

6.      Ct balanced private and public interest- Balancing Test

a.       Private: NO interest in CA, nobody was from CA

b.      Public:

                                                                                                                                      i.      only 1 party from PA, since Scottish law would apply to some Δs while American laws would apply to others…it would make no sense to combine the 2 and confuse the jury and even judges.

                                                                                                                                    ii.      Cts don’t want Δs to “shop” for venues with favorable laws.

                                                                                                                                  iii.      Most of evidence would be overseas. The Scottish interest outweighs the American

7.      S 1406 (a): the Ct can discretionarily dismiss a case from a Ct that has NO Jx, to a case that has Jx

                                                            ii.      Private interest factors:

1.      Relative ease of access to sources of proof

2.      Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses

3.      Possibility to view premises

4.      All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy

                                                          iii.      Public interest factors:

1.      Court case congestion

2.      Local interest in having localized controversies decided at home

3.      Applying the “home” law

4.      Unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty