15. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v.

California
Facts: An action against Hartford Fire Insurance Co. and other London-based reinsurers was filed
by California on the premise that they had engaged in unlawful conspiracies to affect the market
for insurance in the United States and that their conduct in fact produced substantial effect, thus
violating the Sherman Act. In Hartford view and argument, the district court should have declined
to exercise jurisdiction under the principle of international comity. The court of appeals agreed
that courts should look to that principle in deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction under the
Sherman Act but that other factors, including Hartford’s express purpose to affect U.S. commerce
and the substantial nature of the effect produced, outweighed the supposed conflict, requiring the
exercise of jurisdiction in this case. Hartford appealed.
Issue: WN jurisdiction be exercised over foreign conduct since no exist in a situation where a
person subject to regulation by two states can comply with the laws both
Held: Yes. Jurisdiction may be exercised over foreign conduct since no conflict exists in a
situation where a person subject to regulation by two states can comply with the laws of both.
The Sherman Act is applicable to foreign conduct meant to produce and in fact produce some
substantial effect in the United States. Even assuming that a court may decline to exercise
Sherman Act jurisdiction over foreign conduct, international comity would not prevent a
U.S. court from exercising jurisdiction in the circumstances alleged here. Since there is no
irreconcilable conflict between domestic and British law, the reinsurers (D) may not invoke
comity. Affirmed.
“Comity of nations” is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “(t)he recognition which one nation
allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation, having
due regard both to international duty and convenience and to the rights of its own citizens or of
other persons who are under the protection of its laws.” Justice Scalia advocated that a nation
having some basis for jurisdiction should nonetheless refrain from exercising that jurisdiction
when the exercise of such jurisdiction is unreasonable when he endorsed the approach of the
Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law.
16. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
Facts: There was a plane crash in Scotland, where five citizens of Scotland were killed. The
aircraft was manufactured in Pennsylvania by Piper Aircraft Company (Defendant) and the
propellers were made in Ohio by Hartzell Propeller, Inc. (Defendant). The plane was registered in
Great Britain and owned and operated by people from the United Kingdom. The wreckage was in
England. An investigation conducted by The British Department of Trade concluded that there
was no evidence of defective equipment and that the crash was probably due to pilot error. Reyno,
Plaintiff, a legal secretary for the attorney of the decedents’ survivors, was appointed
administratrix of the decedents’ estate by a California probate court. Plaintiff commenced separate
wrongful death actions against the Piper and Hartzell in California Superior Court, claiming
negligence and strict liability. They also filed suit in the United Kingdom against the owner and
operator. Plaintiff admits that she filed suit in the United States because of its laws regarding
liability and capacity to sue. Defendant filed motion to remove to the District Court in California
which was granted. Piper moved to transfer to the District Court in Pennsylvania. Hartzell moved
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to transfer. The District Court
quashed service and transferred the case to Pennsylvania. Plaintiff then served Hartzell with
process in the District Court in Pennsylvania. Defendants moved to dismiss for forum non
conveniens.
The District Court of Pennsylvania granted the motions based on the analysis articulated in ],
namely that: 1) An alternative forum existed in Scotland; 2) The plaintiff only filed in the U.S. for
the favorable law; 3) There were overwhelming connections with Scotland; 4) Witnesses and
evidence were beyond the reach of compulsory process.; 5) All of Defendants’ witnesses are in
Great Britain; 6) There should be only one trial to preserve judicial expense and avoid the risk of
inconsistent verdicts; 7) Scottish law would apply to Hartzell, and Pennsylvania law would apply
to Piper, which would be excessively confusing for a jury; 8) The jurors have little connection to
the controversy; 9) Scotland has a substantial interest in the outcome of litigation.
The Circuit Court reversed and remanded District Court’s decision. It held that the District Court
abused its discretion when using the Gilbert analysis. In addition, the court baed its argument on
several additional factors: (1) dismissal is never appropriate where the law of the alternative forum
is less favorable to Plaintiffs; (2) Plaintiffs’ choice of forum deserves substantial weight even
though they are non-residents; (3) Defendants did not prove that all their witnesses were in Great
Britain; (4) Defendants’ inability to implead other defendants would be burdensome but not unfair;
(5) viewing the wreckage and Scottish topography was not that significant; (6) application of
foreign law does not require dismissal; (7) Pennsylvania and Ohio would be the governing law
anyway, because these states have the greatest policy interests; and finally (8) a dismissal for forum
non conveniens should not result in a change in the applicable law, just a change in the location of
the trial. The Supreme Court read this holding to mandate that dismissal is automatically barred if
it would lead to a change in the applicable law unfavorable to the plaintiff.
Issue: WN a case be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens when all the witnesses
and evidence are in another country
Held: Yes. Reversed. The possibility of a change of law should not be given substantial weight in
a forum non conveniens analysis. Plaintiffs can choose among many forums, and generally choose
the most favorable one. If they do not choose the most favorable but the action can be dismissed
anyway, it would not be proper. In addition, courts would have to interpret the law of foreign
districts, which would pose a lot of problems and inconsistencies. This is why there is a doctrine
of forum non conveniens, to get rid of this kind of confusion.
Even if Scottish law would not apply, the other public interest factors would be sufficient to
support dismissal. There is a local interest. The American interest is not sufficient.
Choosing a particular forum because the law is more favorable to the plaintiff cannot be given any
substantial weight under a forum non conveniens analysis. Although the general rule is that a court
should not dismiss a case on grounds of forum non conveniens unless there is an alternate forum
in which the plaintiff can pursue a remedy, this rule only requires that the plaintiff be able to file
a proper lawsuit in that alternate