Whether a district court may dismiss a case under forum non conveniens when the plaintiff would be required to litigate its claims in multiple foreign tribunals rather than a single comprehensive forum

No question identified. : in Saudi Arabia rather than litigate a single case against all defendants in its home forum in Virginia. This Court has held that “{a]t the outset of any forwm non conveniens inquiry, the court must determine whether there exists an alternative forum.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 254 n.22 (1981). But the Court has not specifically addressed whether “an alternative forum” requires the existence of a single foreign tribunal in which a plaintiff can bring its entire case against all defendants, or whether the plaintiff may be forced to split its case across multiple courts in a foreign country. 2. In this case, AdvanF ort owns a maritime security vessel, the M/V Seaman Guard Virginia, which was looted and destroyed by the Saudi Ports Authority and Zamil Offshore Services Company (Zamil) while docked at the Jeddah Shipyard in Saudi Arabia for routine maintenance. AdvanFort filed suit in its home forum—the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia—alleging claims for conversion, breach of bailment, negligence, and gross negligence. The Saudi Ports Authority defaulted and never appeared. Zamil, however, appeared and moved to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens (among other reasons). The district court granted the motion on that ground and dismissed the case against both defendants. On appeal, a majority of the Fourth Circuit affirmed in a published opinion over Judge Thacker’s dissent. The majority reasoned that the law “does not go so far as to demand that a defendant must identify a single tribunal in a foreign jurisdiction where all claims brought by a plaintiff may be heard and resolved.” Op. 16. Rather, all that is required is that “a defendant provide more than generalized evidence to demonstrate that the alternative forum is better, i.e., available.” 7d. (internal quotation marks omitted). And, according to the majority, a party satisfies that burden by showing that “all parties are amenable to process in the other jurisdiction.” Jd. at 16-17 (internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, the majority held that whether “an alternative forwm” exists turns only on whether an alternative country exists in which courts have jurisdiction over all defendants, even if, to find such jurisdiction, the plaintiff's case must be litigated piecemeal in multiple tribunals. Judge Thacker dissented. She correctly explained that “(d]ismissal for forum non conveniens requires the existence of one alternate, adequate, and available forum.” Op. 27 (Thacker, J., dissenting) (emphasis added). After all, this Court’s decision in Piper requires “an alternative] forum.” Id. (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 254 n.22). By deciding otherwise, she explained, the majority put the Fourth Circuit at odds with the Tenth Circuit’s decision in DIRTT, which held that “forum non conveniens ‘is not available as a tool to split or bifurcate cases.” Id. at 29 (quoting DIRTT Env’t Sols., Inc. v. Falkbuilt Ltd., 65 F 4th 547, 555 (10th Cir. 2023)). Judge Thacker would have held “that forum non conveniens is unavailable in this case because there is not a single alternative forum available to all defendants” given that requiring AdvanF ort to litigate in “Saudi Arabia would require the case be split between two courts.” Jd. at 27, 29. 3. AdvanF ort respectfully requests an extension of time to determine whether to file a petition for writ of certiorari, and to prepare and file any such petition, seeking review of the Fourth Circuit’s published decision. This case presents important questions of federal law that this Court has not addressed. AdvanFort’s undersigned counsel is heavily engaged with other matters with recent and pending deadlines that would make the existing deadline difficult to meet, including merits briefs in the Third, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits and upcoming oral arguments in the Second and Eleventh Circuits. The requested extension would allow counsel to continu