## Facts

- U.S.O. Corporation was incorporated in Delaware but was effectively a Japan-based enterprise: it was wholly owned by a Japanese parent and operated from Japan through Japan-based investment entities.
- Through tiers of partnerships, the investment structure resulted in an indirect ownership interest in a Chicago building.
- After the building was sold, approximately $6.95 million in proceeds attributable to U.S.O.’s indirect interest was deposited into a Mizuho bank account in Japan.
- U.S.O. alleged Mizuho misappropriated the $6.95 million from the Japanese account.
- U.S.O. also alleged that, over roughly ten years, Mizuho skimmed part of the annual investment returns, reducing U.S.O.’s return to about $500,000 per year.
- Most alleged misconduct occurred in Japan, by Japanese actors; nearly all relevant witnesses and documents were located in Japan.
- After U.S.O. filed in U.S. federal court, Mizuho filed a mirror-image declaratory judgment action in Japan seeking a ruling that U.S.O. had no claim to the proceeds; the Japanese court declined to dismiss and proceeded with the case.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by dismissing U.S.O.’s diversity action on forum non conveniens grounds in favor of litigation in Japan.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
- The court held Japan was an available and adequate alternative forum for the dispute.
- The court concluded the balance of private- and public-interest factors strongly favored Japan, especially given the Japan-centered conduct, witnesses, and evidence.
- The court gave reduced deference to U.S.O.’s U.S. forum choice because U.S.O. was foreign in substance despite Delaware incorporation.
- The existence of a parallel, mirror-image Japanese proceeding supported dismissal to avoid duplicative litigation and to litigate where the controversy was concentrated.

## Legal Principles

- Forum non conveniens permits dismissal when an adequate alternative forum exists and litigating in the chosen forum would impose burdens on the defendant or the court out of proportion to the plaintiff’s convenience.
- A plaintiff’s forum choice receives less deference when the plaintiff is foreign (or foreign in practical terms) and sues outside its real home base.
- Courts weigh private-interest factors (access to proof, witness convenience, practical trial burdens) and public-interest factors (local interest, court burdens, choice-of-law and translation complications, and risks from parallel proceedings).
- The presence of ongoing parallel foreign litigation may support dismissal when it reflects the alternative forum’s readiness to adjudicate and heightens concerns about duplication and inconsistent outcomes.
- Appellate review of a forum non conveniens dismissal is deferential; reversal is warranted only for abuse of discretion.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit upheld dismissal because the dispute was centered in Japan, Japan provided an adequate forum already handling a parallel action, and the private- and public-interest considerations made an Illinois federal trial disproportionately burdensome relative to any demonstrated convenience to the plaintiff.


U.S.O. Corp. v. Mizuho Holding Co., 547 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 2008)