Karayanni.FN023.Piper Aircraft v. Reyno.pdf - The University of ...

OCTOBER TERM, 1981Opinion of the Court 454 U. S.trict of Pennsylvania has little connection with the controversy;and that Scotland has a substantial interest in the outcomeof the litigation.In opposing the motions to dismiss, respondent contendedthat dismissal would be unfair because Scottish law was lessfavorable. The District Court explicitly rejected this claim.It reasoned that the possibility that dismissal might lead toan unfavorable change in the law did not deserve significantweight; any deficiency in the foreign law was a "matter to bedealt with in the foreign forum." Id., at 738.COn appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for theThird Circuit reversed and remanded for trial. The decisionto reverse appears to be based on two alternative grounds.First, the Court held that the District Court abused its discretionin conducting the Gilbert analysis. Second, theCourt held that dismissal is never appropriate where the lawof the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff.The Court of Appeals began its review of the DistrictCourt's Gilbert analysis by noting that the plaintiffs choice offorum deserved substantial weight, even though the real partiesin interest are nonresidents. It then rejected the DistrictCourt's balancing of the private interests. It found thatPiper and Hartzell had failed adequately to support theirclaim that key witnesses would be unavailable if trial wereheld in the United States: they had never specified the witnessesthey would call and the testimony these witnesseswould provide. The Court of Appeals gave little weight tothe fact that Piper and Hartzell would not be able to impleadpotential Scottish third-party defendants, reasoning that thisdifficulty would be "burdensome" but not "unfair," 630 F. 2d,at 162.1 Finally, the court stated that resolution of the suit'The court claimed that the risk of inconsistent verdicts was slight becausePennsylvania and Scotland both adhere to principles of res judicata.