Summary of Part IV

• Author: Ernesto Sanchez
• Pages: 269-270

269

SU MM A R Y O F PART IV

(1) Venue—the geographic location where a case is heard—is a matter of convenience for

litigants and witnesses.

(2) Absent a forum selection agreement, venue in an FSIA action is proper:

(A) in any judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving

rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the

action is situated;

(B) in any judicial district in which the vessel or cargo of a foreign state is situated, if the

claim is brought to enforce a maritime lien under 28 U.S.C.§ 1605(b);

(C) in any judicial district in which the agency or instrumentality is licensed to do busi-

ness or is doing business, if the action is brought against an agency or instrumental-

ity of a foreign state as dened in 28 U.S.C.§ 1603(b); or

(D) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia if the action is brought

against a foreign state or political subdivision thereof.

(3) With respect to multiple defendants and nonsovereign co-defendants, pendent venue

applies if all claims at issue originate from a common nucleus of operative facts.

(4) Courts consider motions for venue transfers or dismissal in the context of the FSIA’s

venue provisions, Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allowing for

motions to dismiss for improper venue, and the federal venue transfer statutes— 28

U.S.C.§§ 1404(a) and 1406(a). But motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens in

favor of a foreign court are more common in FSIA litigation.

(5) Defendants seeking forum non conveniens dismissals must establish that:

(A) an alternative forum exists;

(B) the proposed alternative forum aords an adequate remedy for the dispute; and

(C) the parties’ convenience and the interests of justice weigh in favor of dismissal.

(6) e pendency of foreign parallel proceedings can weigh in favor of a for um non conve-

niens dismissal.

(7) Alternatively, to address such proceedings’ pendency, a U.S. court has the option of:

(A) staying or dismissing the U.S. proceedings solely on the basis that parallel foreign

proceedings are pending;

(B) simply permitting the parallel actions to proceed (or at least not doing anything

about them, which is the most preferred course of action for comity reasons); or

ForSovImmunAct_book.indb 269 4/11/13 3:32 PM