Whether, in a multi-defendant case, district courts are legally prohibited from dismissing any defendant under the doctrine of forum non conveniens unless there is a single adequate alternative forum where all defendants can be sued

QUESTION PRESENTED Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens (“FNC”), federal courts may in_ appropriate circumstances exercise their discretion to dismiss parties to an action in favor of a foreign forum. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981). FNC dismissal, however, is only appropriate when an adequate “alternative forum” exists abroad. Id. at 254 & n.22 (citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 506-507 (1947)). This case presents the question of whether FNC dismissal is appropriate only if all defendants can be sued in the proposed alternative forum. The District Court dismissed three of six defendants in favor of Canadian court, the “clearly * * * most convenient forum,” while retaining the claims against three U.S.based defendants. Pet. App. 66a. The Tenth Circuit reversed, holding that FNC is never “available as a tool to split or bifurcate cases,” Pet. App. 15a, and that a district court commits legal error in doing so. In so holding, the Tenth Circuit deepened an entrenched circuit split, now pitting six circuits against four others. The question presented is: Whether, in a multi-defendant case, district courts are legally prohibited from dismissing any defendant under the doctrine of forum non conveniens unless there is a single adequate alternative forum where all defendants can be sued.