Máxima Acuña-Atalaya, et al. v. Newmont Mining Corporation, et al.

The forum non conveniens (“FNC”) doctrine only allows a court to dismiss a case to a more convenient forum if that forum is fair and adequate. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254-55 and n.22 (1981). Since forum non conveniens dismissal is a “harsh result,” defendants are supposed to “bear[] a heavy burden in opposing the plaintiff’s chosen forum.” Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 571 U.S. 49, 66 n.8 (2013) (quotation marks omitted), and dismissals are supposed to be “rare.” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 509 (1947). In practice, though, such dismissals are ubiquitous and not difficult to obtain. Part of the problem, and the issue here, is that many lower courts do not actually ensure that the alternative forum is fair and adequate. The problem is particularly acute where, as here, the defendant has been sued in its home forum. In such cases, claims of inconvenience are suspect and courts should be particularly loathe to dismiss to a forum whose adequacy is in question. Here, the district court dismissed in favor of Peru, despite an unprecedented judicial corruption crisis and evidence that Respondents engaged in corruption, including in cases against Petitioners. It held that though these facts are “concerning[,] . . . Peru is an adequate alternative forum.” App. 18a. In affirming, the Third Circuit deepened at least a three-way circuit conflict on how to address a forum’s adequacy. The questions presented are: 1. Does the forum non conveniens doctrine permit dismissal from a defendant’s presumptively fair and convenient home forum when the adequacy of the foreign forum preferred by defendant is in question?