## Facts

- Mohammed A. Kamel, a Saudi citizen doing business as Al Muraa Establishment, marketed and distributed medical equipment in Saudi Arabia.
- Hill-Rom Company, an Indiana manufacturer of hospital equipment, entered an exclusive distribution relationship with Al Muraa for Saudi Arabia in 1985, including supply, warranty, maintenance, and after-sales support obligations.
- In 1986, the parties continued their relationship through a joint venture; Al Muraa agreed to hire Hill-Rom’s Middle East Area Manager, Elias Ephrem Abou-Chedid, to market and sell Hill-Rom products in Saudi Arabia.
- In 1991, Hill-Rom informed Al Muraa that Abou-Chedid would work for STS, a competing Saudi distributor; Kamel alleged Hill-Rom and Abou-Chedid induced Al Muraa to release him by assuring he would not sell Hill-Rom products for STS.
- Kamel alleged Abou-Chedid nonetheless marketed and sold Hill-Rom products for STS, harming Al Muraa’s business relationships in Saudi Arabia.
- In 1993, Hill-Rom terminated its arrangement with Al Muraa while Al Muraa allegedly had pending quotations and contracts.
- Kamel sued Hill-Rom and Abou-Chedid in the Southern District of Indiana, asserting claims including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of confidential information, fraud, and tortious interference.
- The district court dismissed on forum non conveniens, concluding Saudi Arabia was the more appropriate forum; Kamel appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Saudi Arabia was an available alternative forum for the dispute, including whether Hill-Rom would be amenable to process and whether meaningful relief could be pursued there.
2. Whether Saudi Arabia was an adequate alternative forum despite differences from U.S. law and procedure and the possibility of less favorable remedies.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion in balancing private and public interest factors in favor of dismissal.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the forum non conveniens dismissal.
- The court held Saudi Arabia was an available alternative forum based on the record and assurances regarding participation in Saudi proceedings.
- The court held Saudi Arabia was an adequate forum because Kamel had at least a potential avenue for redress, particularly for contract-based claims, even if Saudi law differed from U.S. law.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding private and public interest factors favored litigation in Saudi Arabia.

## Legal Principles

- A federal court may dismiss for forum non conveniens when (1) an alternative forum is available and adequate and (2) the balance of private and public interest factors strongly favors the foreign forum.
- An alternative forum is “adequate” unless the remedy is so clearly unsatisfactory that it is effectively no remedy at all; less favorable law or different procedures generally do not make a forum inadequate.
- In weighing private interests, courts consider access to proof, compulsory process for unwilling witnesses, costs of obtaining witnesses, and other practical trial concerns, with emphasis on where evidence and witnesses are located.
- In weighing public interests, courts consider local interest in the dispute, burdens on courts and juries, and difficulties associated with applying foreign law.
- Appellate review of forum non conveniens determinations is deferential; reversal requires a showing of abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld dismissal to Saudi Arabia because the foreign forum was available and offered at least some remedy, and because the district court reasonably found that both practical litigation considerations and the forums’ comparative interests favored trying the dispute where the relevant business activities, witnesses, and evidence were centered.


Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co., 108 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 1997)