## Facts

- U.S. residents (victims and estates) sued a hotel corporate group connected to the Semiramis Inter-Continental Hotel in Cairo, alleging negligent failure to provide adequate security.
- In October 1993, while U.S. business travelers were dining at the hotel restaurant, an Egyptian gunman entered and opened fire, killing two of the Americans and injuring another.
- The assailant surrendered, was later found insane and committed, escaped years later, and carried out another lethal attack.
- Plaintiffs filed wrongful death and personal injury actions in the Southern District of New York.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for forum non conveniens, asserting Egypt was the more appropriate forum; the district court granted the motion after weighing private and public interest factors, citing Egypt’s connection to the incident, evidence and witnesses abroad, potential third-party practice, likely application of Egyptian law, docket concerns, and related litigation in Egypt.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Egypt when U.S. plaintiffs sued U.S.-connected corporate defendants in a U.S. forum for injuries arising from a foreign incident.
2. Whether the district court gave insufficient deference to the plaintiffs’ choice of forum and misweighed the private and public interest factors.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the forum non conveniens dismissal and remanded for further proceedings in the Southern District of New York.
- The court held that the district court failed to accord proper deference to U.S. plaintiffs’ selection of a U.S. forum and incorrectly concluded that Egypt was clearly the more convenient forum.
- The court determined that the private-interest showing for Egypt did not overcome the presumption favoring plaintiffs’ forum choice, given U.S.-based corporate witnesses and records and the feasibility of litigating foreign-site facts through ordinary evidentiary tools.
- The court held that public-interest considerations (foreign law, docket congestion, and related proceedings in Egypt) did not justify forcing U.S. plaintiffs to litigate abroad, and that the district court placed undue weight on related Egyptian litigation.
- The court treated the plaintiffs’ emotional and practical burden of litigating in the country where the shooting occurred as a legitimate consideration within the convenience analysis.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference; this deference is strongest when plaintiffs are U.S. citizens or residents suing in a U.S. court.
- Forum non conveniens dismissal is appropriate only when the defendant shows that an adequate alternative forum exists and that the balance of private and public interest factors strongly favors the alternative forum.
- The presence of foreign evidence and witnesses does not, by itself, outweigh deference to a U.S. plaintiff’s chosen forum when significant witnesses and records are available in the United States and standard litigation methods can address foreign-location proof.
- The possible need to apply foreign law is a relevant, non-dispositive factor; U.S. courts may apply foreign law without automatic dismissal.
- Related litigation in a foreign country may be considered but cannot override the presumption favoring U.S. plaintiffs’ U.S.-forum choice.
- “Convenience” may include practical burdens on plaintiffs, including the hardship of returning to the site of a traumatic attack.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that the district court misapplied forum non conveniens by failing to give strong deference to U.S. plaintiffs’ U.S.-forum choice and by overstating the weight of Egypt-centered factors, so the dismissal was reversed and the case returned to the Southern District of New York for adjudication on the merits.


Guidi v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corp., 224 F.3d 142 (2d Cir. 2000)