Bintu v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.

KABEYA BINTU, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPI J N. V., a.k.a. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 20-13023

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

July 19, 2021

DO NOT PUBLISH

Appeal from the United States District Court No. 1:19-cv-04775-SDG for the Northern District of Georgia

Before WILSON, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Kabeya Bintu, a German resident proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his personal injury action under the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention) on forum non conveniens grounds.

On October 23, 2019, Bintu filed an action in the Northern District of Georgia against Delta Airlines, Inc. (Delta) and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (KLM), alleging a personal injury claim under the Montreal Convention. The district court dismissed the action because it determined that Germany provided an adequate alternative forum to bring the case that private and public factors weighed in favor of dismissing the case, and that Bintu could reinstate the suit in Germany without undue inconvenience or prejudice to him.

We review forum non conveniens dismissals for abuse of discretion. Leon v. Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305 1310 (11th Cir. 2001). We afford the district court substantial deference in its forum non conveniens decisions. Id. The party moving for dismissal must demonstrate that an adequate alternative forum is available, public and private factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and the plaintiff can reinstate his suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or prejudice. Id. at 1311. There is a strong presumption that the plaintiff's choice of forum is sufficiently convenient, however a weaker assumption applies in cases brought by a foreign plaintiff. Id.

The district court did not err in dismissing Bintu's case. It did not abuse its discretion in finding that Germany was an adequate alternative forum. Both Germany and the United States are signatories of the Montreal Convention, which allows a plaintiff to bring a personal injury action (1) in the domicile or principal place of business of one of the defendants, (2) where one of the parties has a place of business through which the contract was made, (3) in the territory where the accident happened, or (4) in the plaintiff's permanent residence if the carrier operates services to or from that location. Bintu resides in Germany and Delta and KLM operate out of Germany. Because of this Germany can have jurisdiction over Bintu's case. Additionally, both KLM and Delta expressly stated that they will submit to German jurisdiction and are amenable to process in Germany. Other courts have found Germany to be an adequate alternative forum as well, in spite of the differences between common law and civil law jurisdictions. E.g., Chirag v. MT Marida Marguerite Schiffahrts, 983 F.Supp.2d 188, 197 (D. Conn. 2013); Fagan v. Deutsche Bundesbank, 438 F.Supp.2d 376, 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

The district court similarly did not abuse its discretion in determining that both private and public factors weighed in favor of dismissal. As the plaintiff bringing the case Bintu's choice of forum should be given weight, but that weight is lessened because he is a foreign plaintiff. Leon, 251 F.3d at 1314-15. Thus, the district court was correct in considering where the relevant witnesses and...