Thomas Wood, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Philip Talmadge Wood v. The Boeing Co.

This Court has repeatedly held that a federal court has discretion to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non conveniens “when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear [the] case, and . . . trial in the chosen forum would establish . . . oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant ... out of all proportion to plaintiff’s convenience, or . . . the chosen forum [is] inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal problems.” Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 429 (2007) (quoting three prior cases using this language) (modifications in original). To the extent the courts below considered that restriction, they found nothing in it to preclude dismissal of a case brought by an American against an American company for conduct undertaken in America that allegedly led to the death of petitioner’s brother, another American. The question presented is whether, as multiple circuits have held, dismissal is improper as a matter of law unless a district court affirmatively finds, based on “positive evidence,” that “material injustice is manifest before exercising any such discretion as may exist to deny a United States citizen access to the courts of this country,” or, as the court below approved, dismissal of such a lawsuit is proper if, “on balance,” the court concludes that another country would be “more convenient.” (i)