"like moths to a flame,"
Why do so many litigants, "like moths to a flame," want to litigate in the United States?
Michael Ghannoum, a resident of Texas, was hired to work as a pilot for Qatar Airways. Qatar Airways is entirely owned by the government of Qatar. Ghannoum's employment was based in Qatar, where he resided under a Qatari resident permit. Qatar Airways' chief eecutive officer Akbar Al Baker allegedly terminated Ghannoum without cause and refused to pay Ghannoum for one months work. Qatar Airways subsequently cancelled Ghannoum's residency permit which prevented him from leaving the country to interview for jobs with other airlines. Ghannoum was subsequently deported from Qatar and was unable to return to the country for two to four years. Ghannoum filed a lawsuit against Qatar Airways for tortious interference with prospective relations, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy and defamation. Qatar Airways moved to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens, contending that Qatar was a more convenient forum for the resolution of the claims. Qatar Airwas conceded that Qatar would not be an adequate and available forum if Ghannoum was not permitted to reenter to Qatar. However, Qatar Airways promised the court it would do everything within its power to facilitate Ghannoum's reentry into Qatar to allow him to file and pursue his claims there.
Under the circumstances, is Qatar an adequate alternative forum?
What are the private and public interest factors at stake?
How do these factors balance in this case?
Sample Solution
The answer to whether Qatar is an adequate alternative forum in this case depends on a careful balancing of the private and public interest factors at stake.
Private Interest Factors: The private interest factors include the availability of witnesses, evidence, and cost considerations associated with litigating outside the United States. In this case, Ghannoum's claims will likely require witnesses located in Qatar and access to evidence only available in that country. Litigating abroad could also be more expensive for all parties involved due to travel costs and differences in court procedures and laws between countries. Additionally, since Qatar Airways has promised to facilitate Ghannoum's entry into Qatar so he can pursue his claims there, having him litigate there would likely be less burdensome on Ghannoum than it might otherwise have been had Qatar Airways not offered their assistance.
Public Interest Factors: On the other hand, public interest factors such as judicial efficiency suggest that the most convenient forum for resolution is usually one that is closest to where the events took place or where those affected by them reside; here it would be in Qatar rather than Texas. Since Ghannoum was living under a Qatari resident permit when his employment ended, resolving his dispute there may lead to a result that better reflects local law as well as cultural norms regarding labor practices specific to Qatar. Additionally, allowing cases such as these to proceed in foreign courts serves important international policy objectives because they discourage forum shopping while improving relationships between different nations' legal systems through mutual recognition of similar judgments rendered abroad.
Ultimately, how these two sets of factors balance will depend upon further examination of details specific to this particular case - such as whether any applicable legal exceptions exist - which are beyond the scope of our present discussion.