BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New ...

10-04285-brl Doc 127 Filed 08/17/12 Entered 08/17/12 14:29:55 Main Document
Pg 116 of 133
forum.” Id. (internal citation omitted). “The defendant bears the burden of proof on all elements
of the motion.” Levey v. Hamilton (In re Teknek, LLC), 354 B.R. 181, 206 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
2006) (quoting Bank of Credit & Commerce Int’l (Overseas) Ltd. v. State Bank of Pakistan, 273
F.3d 241, 246 (2d Cir. 2001)).
Luxembourg.
Each of these factors weighs strongly against litigating this adversary proceeding in
A. The Trustee’s Choice of a United States Forum Deserves Significant
Deference
“Any review of a forum non conveniens motion starts with ‘a strong presumption in favor
of the plaintiff’s choice of forum.’” Norex, 416 F.3d at 154 (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v.
Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 255 (1981)). Although “the degree of deference given to a plaintiff’s
forum choice varies with the circumstances,” that forum choice “is generally entitled to great
deference when the plaintiff has sued in the plaintiff’s home forum.” Iragorri, 274 F.3d at 71
(internal citations omitted); see also Eclaire Advisor Ltd. as Trustee to Daewoo Int’l (America)
Corp. Creditor Trust v. Daewoo Eng’g & Constr., 375 F. Supp. 2d 257, 265 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
(“In a case involving international parties, plaintiff’s choice of forum is generally given great
deference when plaintiff has brought suit in its home country.”). The relevant forum, moreover,
is the United States as a whole and not any particular state. Constellation Energy Commodities
Grp. Inc. v. Transfield ER Cape Ltd., 801 F. Supp. 2d 211, 218–19 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (“When an
American citizen residing in the United States sues foreign defendants, the entire United States—
rather than the particular state in which the plaintiff resides—is considered the home forum for
the purposes of a forum non conveniens analysis.” (citing Guidi v. Inter–Cont’l Hotels Corp.,
224 F.3d 142, 146 n.4 (2d Cir. 2000) (additional citations omitted)).
96