Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires the existence of a single foreign court in which a plaintiff has the right to bring its entire case against all defendants, or whether the plaintiff may be forced to split its case across multiple courts

In Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno , 454 U.S. 235 (1981), this Court held that “[a]t the outset of any forum non conveniens inquiry , the court must determine whether there exists an alternative forum.” The courts of appeals are divided on whether this requirement is met where, to proceed elsewhere, a case must be split between multiple courts. In the decision below , the Fourth Circuit held that Piper Aircraft ’s initial requirement is satisfied even when a plaintiff would have to split its case between multiple foreign courts, as long as those courts are in the same country . The question presented is as follows: Whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires the existence of a single foreign court in which a plaintiff has the right to bring its entire case against all defendants, or whether the plai ntiff may be forced to split its case across multiple courts.