## Facts

- A Far Eastern Air Transport (FEAT) Boeing 737 crashed near Taipei, Taiwan on August 22, 1981, killing all 110 passengers and crew.
- Most decedents were foreign citizens and residents, predominantly from Taiwan; only one decedent was a U.S. citizen.
- The aircraft was manufactured by The Boeing Company and sold to FEAT by United Airlines in 1976; FEAT owned and operated the aircraft.
- Taiwanese and U.S. authorities investigated the crash; wreckage and much physical evidence were located in Taiwan.
- Personal representatives for decedents (564 plaintiffs total, mostly foreign) filed consolidated wrongful-death actions in the Northern District of California alleging negligence and strict liability against Boeing and United.
- Boeing (acting also for United) moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of Taiwan, or alternatively to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Western District of Washington.

## Issues

1. Whether the court should dismiss the actions under forum non conveniens in favor of litigation in Taiwan.
2. If dismissal was not warranted, whether the court should transfer the actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

## Decision

- The court granted dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding Taiwan was the appropriate forum.
- The dismissal was conditional upon Boeing and United providing undertakings sufficient to ensure Taiwan was an available and adequate forum (including submission to Taiwanese jurisdiction, waiver of certain limitations defenses, and agreement to satisfy final Taiwanese judgments).
- The court effectively did not reach the alternative § 1404(a) transfer request because dismissal mooted it.

## Legal Principles

- A case may be dismissed for forum non conveniens when an adequate alternative forum exists and the balance of private and public interest factors favors the foreign forum.
- An alternative forum is adequate if defendants are amenable to process there and the remedy is not so inadequate that it amounts to no remedy; a less favorable substantive law ordinarily carries little weight.
- A foreign plaintiff’s choice of a U.S. forum receives reduced deference, and the presumption favoring that choice is more easily overcome when the dispute’s operative facts are predominantly foreign.
- Private interest factors include access to proof, availability and cost of witnesses, compulsory process, and practical trial considerations; concentration of evidence and key witnesses abroad supports dismissal.
- Public interest factors include local interest in the dispute, court congestion, jury burden, and avoidance of complex choice-of-law and foreign-law application; a foreign forum with the primary local connection generally has the stronger interest.
- Conditional dismissal with enforceable undertakings is an accepted method to ensure the alternative forum is actually available and fair.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed consolidated wrongful-death actions arising from a Taiwan air crash on forum non conveniens grounds because the evidence, witnesses, and local interests were centered in Taiwan, and it conditioned dismissal on defendants’ commitments that ensured Taiwan’s courts would be an available and adequate forum.


Nai-Chao v. Boeing Co., 555 F. Supp. 9 (N.D. Cal. 1982)