N DEC. 4, 2001, in Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp.,[1]� the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, sitting en banc, issued an important decision regarding the law of forum non conveniens. Traditional forum non conveniens analysis has centered for over a half century on the basic principles set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert.[2]� These principles require that a plaintiff’s choice of forum be given deference which can be disturbed only where certain public and private interest factors weigh heavily in favor of an adequate alternative forum.
In Iragorri, the en banc Second Circuit superimposed an additional factor that must be considered by courts addressing a forum non conveniens motion. In deciding how much deference to give a plaintiff’s choice of forum, a court must first examine whether the choice was motivated by reasons the law traditionally regards as valid. Similarly, the court must also explore the motivation underlying a defendant’s desire to litigate elsewhere. Once the court determines how much deference to give a plaintiff’s choice of forum, it will be able to assess how much inconvenience has to be shown by the defendant to overcome the plaintiff’s choice.
