CONFLICT OF LAWS | ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN V. PAHLAVI, 62 NY 2D. 474, 5 JULY 1984
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN V. PAHLAVI,
62 NY 2D. 474, 5 JULY 1984
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Act of state doctrine
and jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Forum non conveniens
is court's discretionary power to decline to exercise its jurisdiction where another court may more conveniently hear a
case.
FACTS
Plaintiff, the Islamic Republic of
Iran, brings this action against Iran's former ruler, Shah Mohammed Reza
Pahlavi, and his wife, Empress Farah Diba Pahlavi. It alleges in its complaint
that defendants accepted bribes and misappropriated, embezzled or converted 35
billion dollars in Iranian funds in breach of their fiduciary duty to the
Iranian people and it seeks to recover those funds and 20 billion dollars in
exemplary damages. It asks the court to impress a constructive trust on
defendants' assets located throughout the world, for an
accounting of all moneys and property received by the defendants from the
government of Iran, and for other incidental relief.
Thereafter, defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint alleging that it raised nonjusticiable political questions, that
the court lacked personal jurisdiction due to defective service of process on
them and that the complaint should be dismissed on grounds of forum non
conveniens. Special Term granted defendants' motion based on forum
non conveniens concluding that the parties had no connection with
New York other than a claim that the Shah had deposited funds in New York
banks, a claim which it found insufficient under the circumstances to justify
the court in retaining jurisdiction.
On this appeal plaintiff claims that
the courts below erred, that the New York courts must entertain this action
because the record does not indicate that there is any alternative forum
available and because the United States Government undertook to guarantee
plaintiff an American forum to litigate its claims against the former royal
family in the hostage settlement agreements between it and plaintiff known as
the Algerian Accords.
ISSUE
May the trial court and the Appellate
Division in the exercise of their discretion, dismiss the action on grounds
of forum non conveniens?
Is the availability of an alternative
forum merely an additional factor for the court to consider or is an absolute
precondition to dismissal on conveniens grounds?
RULING
Yes.
The court ruled that the
common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to
stay or dismiss such actions where it is determined that the action,
although jurisdictionally sound, would be better adjudicated elsewhere. Among
the factors to be considered are the burden on the New York courts, the
potential hardship to the defendant, and the unavailability of an alternative
forum in which plaintiff may bring suit. The court may also consider that both
parties to the action are nonresidents and that the transaction out of which
the cause of action arose occurred primarily in a foreign jurisdiction. No one
factor is controlling. The great advantage of the rule of forum non
conveniens is its flexibility based upon the facts and circumstances
of each case. The rule rests upon justice, fairness and convenience.
Here, the court
ruled that arrayed against this case is the possibility that its judgment
may be ineffectual because of the inability [of the courts of this State] to
impose a constructive trust on defendant's assets if they are not in New York.
Moreover, defendant probably cannot defend this claim in any realistic way
because the witnesses and evidence are located in Iran under plaintiff's
control and are not subject to the mandate of New York's courts. The
complainant also seeks a sweeping review of the political and financial
management of the Iranian government during the several years of the late
Shah's reign with the object of accounting for and repossessing the nation's
claimed lost wealth wherever it may be located throughout the world. The
taxpayers of this State should not be compelled to assume the heavy financial
burden attributable to the cost of administering the litigation contemplated
when their interest in the suit and the connection of its subject matter to the
State of New York is so ephemeral. This is litigation by a foreign government
against its own national who happened to be within the State of New York at
the time this suit was commenced. It involves an internal dispute, not
normally a matter considered in the exercise of treaty powers and a matter
which does not generally engage the national interest to the same extent as
claims by nationals of one signatory nation against the other signatory nation.
If the action cannot be maintained in Iran under laws which result in judgments
cognizable in the United States or other foreign jurisdictions where the Shah's
assets may be found, then that failure must be charged to plaintiff. It is,
after all, the government in power, not a hapless national victimized by its
country's policies. Any infirmity in plaintiff's legal system should weigh
against its claim of venue, not impose disadvantage on defendant or the
judicial system of this State. The United States has met its
commitment to "facilitate" this lawsuit by freezing the Shah's assets
and by advising the courts that the Act of State doctrine and sovereign
immunity principles are not to apply to plaintiff's claim. Nothing in the
record or in its communication to the trial court suggests that a promise was
made that it or the courts would do more.
Alternative forum is merely an
additional factor, as to the second case.
The court ruled that the although the
existence of a suitable alternative forum is a most important factor to be
considered in applying the forum non conveniens doctrine, its
alleged absence does not require the court to retain jurisdiction.
Here, the court held that plaintiff has failed to establish that no alternative forum exists and, even if it were assumed that normally an alternative forum is a prerequisite and that plaintiff has none, a forum non conveniens dismissal is still warranted when plaintiff's chosen forum is unable to afford the parties appropriate relief.