## Facts

- Laker Airways Limited, a British airline, operated low-fare transatlantic service between the United States and Europe.
- Laker sued major U.S. and foreign airlines and related entities, alleging a coordinated scheme to eliminate Laker’s low-fare transatlantic operations and drive it from the market.
- The alleged conduct involved multinational coordination, including through industry associations, and was tied to defendants’ business operations in the United States.
- The complaint alleged that significant planning and meetings occurred in the United States (including Florida) and that the challenged conduct affected U.S. markets and consumers.
- Some defendants pursued proceedings in British courts that Laker asserted were intended to obstruct or preempt the U.S. antitrust case.
- The court had previously entered a preliminary anti-suit injunction barring defendants from using British litigation to interfere with the U.S. court’s jurisdiction.
- Defendants asserted forum non conveniens, arguing the dispute should be litigated in England; Laker moved for partial summary judgment to defeat that defense.

## Issues

1. Whether Rule 56 partial summary judgment may be used to adjudicate and reject an affirmative defense of forum non conveniens.
2. Whether the action should be dismissed or deferred on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of an English forum where U.S. antitrust law is central to the claims and key alleged conduct occurred in the United States.

## Decision

- The court held that Rule 56 may be used to obtain partial summary judgment directed to an affirmative defense, including forum non conveniens.
- The court granted Laker’s motion for partial summary judgment on forum non conveniens.
- The court rejected dismissal or deferral to England and held the case should proceed in the District of Columbia.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 56 partial summary judgment can resolve an affirmative defense when doing so serves a useful purpose and avoids prejudice from leaving a threshold defense unresolved.
- Forum non conveniens requires weighing private-interest factors (evidence, witnesses, practical burdens) and public-interest factors (local interest, governing law, policy interests), while giving substantial weight to a plaintiff’s chosen forum when it is connected to the dispute.
- In transnational antitrust litigation, U.S. courts strongly disfavor forum non conveniens dismissal when U.S. antitrust policy is central and the alternative forum would not apply or enforce U.S. antitrust law, because dismissal would defeat Congress’s policy favoring private antitrust enforcement.
- Where substantial alleged conduct and effects are tied to U.S. markets, the United States has a strong public interest in adjudicating the claims under U.S. antitrust law, and typical convenience arguments may carry reduced weight in multinational commercial disputes.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the plaintiff to use Rule 56 to obtain an early ruling on forum non conveniens and held that a U.S. antitrust action alleging a U.S.-centered conspiracy affecting U.S. markets should remain in U.S. court, rather than being sent to an English forum that would not enforce U.S. antitrust law.


Laker Airways Ltd. v. Pan Am. World Airways, 568 F. Supp. 811 (D.D.C. 1983)