Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp.
274 F.3d 65, 2001 WL 1538928 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The degree of deference afforded to a U.S. plaintiff's choice of a U.S. forum is determined by a flexible "sliding scale" analysis based on the legitimacy of the plaintiff's motivations, rather than a rigid rule requiring the suit to be filed in the plaintiff's home district.
Facts:
- Mauricio Iragorri was a U.S. citizen and domiciliary of Florida.
- His wife Haidee and their two children, the plaintiffs, were also U.S. citizens domiciled in Florida.
- At the time of the incident, Haidee and the children were temporarily living in Bogota, Colombia, for an educational exchange program.
- On October 3, 1992, Mauricio Iragorri fell five floors to his death down an open elevator shaft in an apartment building in Cali, Colombia.
- The defendants included Otis Elevator Company, with its principal place of business in Connecticut, and its parent company, United Technologies Corporation, also with its principal place of business in Connecticut.
- It was alleged that an employee of another defendant, International Elevator, Inc., had negligently wedged open the elevator door with a screwdriver to perform service.
- The plaintiffs also alleged a products liability claim against Otis and United for defective design and manufacture of the elevator.
Procedural Posture:
- The Iragorris sued Otis Elevator Company, United Technologies Corporation, and International Elevator, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (a federal trial court).
- The trial court transferred the claims against International Elevator to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.
- The District of Maine dismissed the case against International Elevator on forum non conveniens grounds, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- Defendants Otis and United then moved to dismiss the claims against them in the District of Connecticut for forum non conveniens.
- The District Court for the District of Connecticut granted the motion and dismissed the case, on the condition that the defendants agree to appear in court in Cali, Colombia.
- The Iragorris, as appellants, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit vacated the district court's decision and remanded.
- The Second Circuit then voted to rehear the case en banc (with the full panel of judges) to clarify the law on this issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a U.S. resident plaintiff's choice of a U.S. forum lose the high deference typically afforded to a home forum choice merely because the chosen district is not the plaintiff's district of residence?
Opinions:
Majority - Leval and Cabranes, Circuit Judges.
No. The deference accorded to a U.S. plaintiff's choice of a U.S. forum operates on a sliding scale and is not automatically reduced simply because the plaintiff sues outside their home district. The court must assess the plaintiff's motivations for choosing the forum. The more it appears the choice was based on legitimate reasons recognized by law—such as convenience, the defendant's amenability to suit, or the availability of witnesses and evidence—the greater the deference the choice is due. Conversely, the more the choice appears motivated by tactical forum-shopping—such as seeking habitually generous juries or laws favorable to the plaintiff's case—the less deference it commands. This flexible approach replaces a rigid distinction between a home forum and a non-home forum, recognizing that a U.S. resident may have valid reasons to sue in a U.S. court other than their own, especially if it is the defendant's principal place of business and the only forum where jurisdiction over all parties is certain.
Analysis:
This en banc decision clarifies the doctrine of forum non conveniens within the Second Circuit by rejecting a rigid, geographical test for deference in favor of a flexible, motive-based analysis. It establishes the "sliding scale" as the controlling framework, providing district courts with a more nuanced approach to weigh a plaintiff's choice of forum. This makes it more difficult for defendants to obtain forum non conveniens dismissals against U.S. plaintiffs who sue in a U.S. court, so long as the plaintiff can demonstrate bona fide reasons for their choice of forum beyond mere tactical advantage.
