In AdvanFort Co. v. Zamil Offshore Srvs. Co., No. 24-1007 (4th Cir. Apr. 22, 2025), a Fourth Circuit panel splits 2-1 over whether forum non conveniens can apply when the alternative foreign forum for a case may require filing in two separate courts.
“AdvanFort filed a five-count complaint in the district court for the Eastern District of Virginia against Zamil and the [Saudi] Ports Authority for conversion, breach of bailment, negligence, and gross negligence” regarding one of its vessels. “It sought damages for the loss of the Virginia, plus damages for the loss of profits resulting from AdvanFort’s inability to deploy the vessel due to its unserviceable condition.”
Defendants moved to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, contending that the events of the lawsuit – as well as the physical and testimonial evidence – were all centered on Saudi Arabia. Plaintiff argued, among other things, “that the Saudi courts were unavailable because AdvanFort may be required to pursue its claims against the Ports Authority and Zamil before separate tribunals — that is, the Saudi Board of Grievances and the Saudi Commercial Court, respectively.” The district court nevertheless granted the motion and dismissed the case.
The Fourth Circuit affirms. Addressing the specific argument that refiling in Saudi Arabia would require the plaintiff to split its claim over two courts, the panel majority finds this fact by itself not to be an impediment.
“AdvanFort . . . urges us to hold that a defendant moving for dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens bears the burden of identifying a single available alternative forum. Our precedent, however, 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. Rather, we require only that a defendant provide more than generalized evidence to demonstrate that ‘the alternative forum is better,’ i.e., available.” (Whether the plaintiff would have the file in two places was also disputed by defendants, but the panel majority has no occasion to resolve this issue.)
The dissent, by Judge Thacker, finds the majority’s position untenable because of the expense, inconvenience, and risks to the plaintiff. The dissent would hold that forum non conveniens requires the existence of a single foreign forum.
“Here, requiring AdvanFort to litigate its claims against Zamil and the Ports Authority in separate Saudi courts creates piecemeal litigation and increases the possibility of overlapping and inconsistent judgments. And it forces AdvanFort to incur the costs and inconvenience associated with litigating not one, but two, cases in separate tribunals.”
“Given all of this, I would conclude that forum non conveniens is unavailable in this case because there is not a single alternative forum available to all defendants. I would vacate the district court’s dismissal and allow AdvanFort to proceed on its claims in its home forum, the Eastern District of Virginia.”