Van Schijndel v. Boeing Co.

*995 MEMORANDUM *

Eva Van Schijndel 1 appeals the district court’s dismissal of her claims against The Boeing Company and Goodrich Corporation (collectively, “Boeing”) on forum non conveniens grounds. For several reasons, we conclude that the district court’s assessment of the relevant factors was not reasonable and, therefore, that the dismissal constituted an abuse of discretion. Ravelo Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 511 (9th Cir.2000).

First, the decision misstates the plaintiffs’ theory as being “that a fully loaded, fully fueled 747 aircraft, moving down a closed, under-construction runway at take-off speed, should be able to withstand collision with construction cranes, bulldozers, and the like.” This characterization differs from the district court’s earlier and correct understanding of the action as premised on the malfunctioning of the allegedly flawed design and manufacture of the plane’s emergency and evacuation equipment, not the “integrity of the aircraft” itself on impact. The difference between these theories is material with respect to several key inquiries pertinent to the forum non conveniens question, including which evidence and witnesses are material and…

The Supreme Court observed in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 , 102 S.Ct. 252 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981), “[t]he forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.... In examining the District Court’s analysis of the public and private interests, however, the Court of Appeals seems to have lost sight of this rule, and substituted its own judgment for that of the District Court.” Id. at 257 , 102 S.Ct. 252 . Much the same can be said here. Rather than deferring, the majority nitpicks the district court’s order, finding fault where none exists. Specifically, my colleagues hold that the district court committed three errors, but they are thrice mistaken.

The majority’s first claim of error is that the district court “misstates the plaintiffs’ theory [of liability]” and is confused about whether this case is about the “integrity of the aircraft” or “the malfunctioning of the allegedly flawed design and manufacture of the plane’s emergency and evacuation equipment.” Maj. mem. at 3 (internal quotation marks omitted). But as the majority acknowledges, id., the district court transcript shows that the court understood very well that…