BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12 Entered 08/17/12 14:29:55 Main Document<br />
Pg 115 of 133<br />
VII. THE COURT SHOULD NOT DISMISS THIS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING FOR<br />
FORUM NON CONVENIENS<br />
Ignoring the numerous connections that this adversary proceeding and the SIPA<br />
liquidation have to the United States, Luxalpha moves to dismiss the entire case against all<br />
Defendants on the grounds that Luxembourg would be a more convenient forum for this<br />
litigation. Notably, no other Defendant joins in this argument or consents to jurisdiction in<br />
Luxembourg. See Concesionaria DHM, S.A. v. Int’l Fin. Corp., 307 F. Supp. 2d 553, 563<br />
(S.D.N.Y. 2004) (explaining that “to grant motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, court<br />
must find ‘that the litigation may be conducted elsewhere against all defendants.’”) (emphasis<br />
added) (quoting PT United Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 138 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir. 1998)).<br />
Luxalpha’s argument is untenable.<br />
“Forum non conveniens is a discretionary device permitting a court in rare instances to<br />
dismiss a claim even if the court is a permissible venue with proper jurisdiction over the claim.”<br />
Wiwa, 226 F.3d at 100 (internal quotation omitted) (emphasis added). “[I]t is generally<br />
understood that, ‘unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff’s choice of<br />
forum should rarely be disturbed.’” Norex Petrol. Ltd. v. Access Indus., Inc., 416 F.3d 146, 154<br />
(2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)).<br />
The Second Circuit has outlined a three-step analysis for a district court to employ when<br />
considering whether to dismiss an action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Id. at 153<br />
(citing Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir. 2001)). First, “a court<br />
determines the degree of deference properly accorded the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Id.<br />
(internal citation omitted). Second, a court must determine “whether the alternative forum<br />
proposed by the defendants is adequate to adjudicate the parties’ dispute.” Id. (internal citation<br />
omitted). Third, “a court balances the private and public interests implicated in the choice of<br />
95
Change language