Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“farmanfarmaian”
107 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Service Company (ca2, 1981-05-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Service Company (4×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 1981 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
farmanfarmaian
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sirleaf, Jr v. Clarke
E.D. Va. · 2020 · confidence medium
“With respect to the United States treaty with Liberia, the treaty merely grants the citizens of each country ‘freedom of access’ to the courts of the other country,” and “[t]he treaty stops well short of granting the nationals of both countries ‘access to each country’s courts on terms no less favorable than those applicable to nationals of the court’s country.’” Pollux Holding Ltd. v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 329 F.3d 64, 72 (2d Cir. 2003) '8 The Court notes that Sirleaf’s claim regarding Defendants’ alleged retaliatory action is addressed in the Court’s analysis of Cl…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Blanco v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela, S.A., 997 F.2d 974 , 980 (2d Cir.1993) (finding forum non conveniens despite Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Navigation and Commerce); Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978) (affirming forum non conveniens dismissal where “the judge applied the same forum non conveniens standards as would be applied were the plaintiff an American citizen”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dr. Tassilo Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc.
Fed. Cir. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Blanco v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela, S.A., 997 F.2d 974 , 980 (2d Cir.1993) (finding forum non conveniens despite Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Navigation and Commerce); Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978) (affirming forum non conveniens dismissal where "the judge applied the same forum non conveniens standards as would be applied were the plaintiff an American citizen").
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pollux Holding Ltd. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, Springwell Navigation Corporation v. The Chase Manhattan Bank
2d Cir. · 2003 · confidence medium
The treaty stops well short of granting the nationals of both countries “access to each country’s courts on terms no less favorable than those applicable to nationals of the court’s country.” See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kurzke v. Nissan Motor Corp.
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1999 · confidence medium
Moges Shipping Co., Ltd., 918 F. 2d 1446, 1451 (9th Cir.1990) (explaining that because defendant "cannot compel these [foreign] witnesses to appear before U.S. courts, [his] defense and trial preparation could suffer some impediment if the U.S. courts were to retain control of [the] litigation"); Camejo v. Ocean Drilling & Exploration, 838 F. 2d 1374, 1380 (5th Cir.1988) (citing fact that "[c]ompulsory process for [foreign] witnesses is unavailable in [chosen] forum" as a factor militating district court's decision not to exercise its jurisdiction); de Melo v. Lederle Labs., 801 F. 2d 1058, 10…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Ioannides v. Marika Maritime Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1996 · confidence medium
Co., 654 F.2d at 153; Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Scottish Air International, Inc. And Murray Vidockler v. British Caledonian Group, Plc, Adam Thomson, Dennis H. Walter, and R. Marshall Gibson
2d Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Because of the broad authority possessed by the district court, see Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978), our review in this area of the law is quite constrained.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dominic Murray v. British Broadcasting Corporation and Bbc Lionheart Television International
2d Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Compare Blanco v. Banco Indus, de Venezuela, S.A., 997 F.2d 974 , 981 (2d Cir.1993) (no lesser presumption accorded to a foreign plaintiff’s choice of forum “when a treaty with a foreign nation accords its nationals access to our courts equivalent to that provided American citizens”); Alcoa Steamship Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147 , 153 n. 6 (2d Cir.) (in banc) (discussing “access to courts” and “no less favorable treatment” clauses in forum non conveniens context), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 890 , 101 S.Ct. 248 , 66 L.Ed.2d 116 (1980); Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blanco v. Banco Industrial De Venezuela (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
2d Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147 , 152-53 (2d Cir.) (in banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 890 , 101 S.Ct. 248 , 66 L.Ed.2d 116 (1980); Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Petroquimica de Venezuela, S.A. v. M/T Trade Resolve
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · confidence medium
The analysis of the Court in Gilbert was adopted by the Second Circuit in Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978) and explicitly held to apply to admiralty actions in Alcoa S.S.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Blanco v. Banco Industrial de Venezuela, S.A. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
2d Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147 , 152-53 (2d Cir.) (in banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 890 , 101 S.Ct. 248 , 66 L.Ed.2d 116 (1980); Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Doe v. Hyland Therapeutics Division
S.D.N.Y. · 1992 · confidence medium
M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d at 152 -53 and n. 6; Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reginald H. Howe v. Goldcorp Investments, Ltd.
1st Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Cf. Pain v. United Technologies Corp., 637 F.2d 775, 786-88 (D.C.Cir.1980), ce rt. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 980 , 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981) (where most of the documents and testimonial evidence were outside the United States and were “immune from the compulsory process of American courts,” if “trial were to be conducted in the United States, the inability of both parties to obtain the full panoply of relevant ... evidence would greatly hinder fair resolution of the dispute”); Dahl v. United Technologies Corp., 632 F.2d 1027, 1030 (3d Cir.1980) (same); Schertenleib v. Traum, 589 F.…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ferruzzi Italia, S.P.A. v. Trade & Transport, Inc.
D. Maryland · 1988 · confidence medium
Compare Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. at 509 , 67 S.Ct. at 843 ; Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 881 (2d Cir.1978). 4 A separate order is being entered herewith denying defendants' motion. 1 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Crimson Semiconductor, Inc. v. Electronum
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Pain, 637 F.2d at 785 ; Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 881 (2d Cir.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James v. Gulf International Marine Corp.
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
We note that courts in other circuits have partially accepted James’ interpretation of the provisions, e.g., Pain v. United Technologies Corp., 637 F.2d 775, 795-99 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 980 , 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981); Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 890 , 101 S.Ct. 248 , 66 L.Ed.2d 116 (1980); Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978); nevertheless, despite such provisions, these courts have dismissed the suits where the balance weighs in favor of another forum.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James v. Gulf International Marine Corp.
5th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of her suit. 7 AFFIRMED. 1 The opinion sets out in detail the facts and long procedural history of this case 2 We note that courts in other circuits have partially accepted James' interpretation of the provisions, e.g., Pain v. United Technologies Corp., 637 F.2d 775, 795-99 (D.C.Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1128 , 102 S.Ct. 980 , 71 L.Ed.2d 116 (1981); Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 890 , 101 S.Ct. 248 , 66 L.Ed.2d 116 (1980); Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.…
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Matter of Arbitration Between Maria Victoria Naviera, S.A., Petitioner v. Cementos Del Valle, S.A., and Materiales Los Alpes, S.A.
2d Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147 , 158 (2 Cir.1980) (en banc); Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2 Cir.1978).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Irish National Insurance Company, Limited v. Aer Lingus Teoranta, D/B/A Aer Lingus-Irish Airlines
2d Cir. · 1984 · confidence medium
Alcoa Steamship Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, supra, 654 F.2d at 152 ; Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gibbons v. Udaras Na Gaeltachta
S.D.N.Y. · 1982 · confidence medium
However, the Supreme Court’s most recent case on the subject does not suggest that there is any distinction between the presumption owed a resident citizen’s choice of forum and that given to a nonresident citizen’s choice, see Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, supra, 102 S.Ct. at 265-66, and the Court of Appeals for this Circuit has apparently rejected the possibility of drawing such a distinction, see Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978) (affording plaintiffs choice of forum greater weight on account of plaintiffs status, by treaty, as a United States citizen, n…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pain v. United Technologies Corp.
D.C. Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
See Alcoa en banc, supra note 32, slip op. at 5955-57; Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir. 1978).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Calavo Growers Of California v. Generali Belgium (3×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 , 67 S.Ct. 839, 843 , 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947); Alcoa Steamship Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 636 F.2d 860 at 871 (2d Cir. 1980) (in banc); Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp. 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir. 1978).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Calavo Growers v. Belgium (3×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 , 67 S.Ct. 839, 843 , 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947); Alcoa Steamship Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 636 F.2d 860 at 871 (2d Cir. 1980) (in banc); Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp. 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir. 1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Company
3rd Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
This weighs heavily against dismissal."); Hoffman v. Goberman, 420 F.2d 423, 426-27 (3d Cir. 1970) 23 479 F.Supp. at 731 24 Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 437 F.Supp. 910, 927 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd on other grounds, 588 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1978) 25 See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir. 1978) 26 Alcoa Steamship Co., Inc. v. M/V Nordic Regent, F.2d No. 78-7054, slip op. 2d 5960-68, 5973 (2d Cir. Feb. 25, 1980) (en banc).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fosen v. United Technologies Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1980 · confidence medium
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, supra, 330 U.S. at 509 , 67 S.Ct. at 843 ; Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 881 (2d Cir. 1978); Olympic Corp. v. Societe Generate, A/S, 462 F.2d 376, 379 (2d Cir. 1972).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ionescu v. E. F. Hutton & Co. (France) S. A.
S.D.N.Y. · 1979 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
See, e. g., Mizokami Bros., supra; Texaco Trinidad, Inc. v. Astro Exito Navegacion S. A., 437 F.Supp. 331, 333-34 (S.D.N.Y.1977); Mohr v. Allen, 407 F.Supp. 483, 488 (S.D.N.Y.1976); Bernuth Lembcke Co. v. Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, 1976 A.M.C. 2175 (S.D.N.Y.1976); Harrison v. Capivary, Inc., 334 F.Supp. 1141 (E.D.Mo.1971); cf. Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir. 1978).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alcoa Steamship Company, Inc. v. M/V Nordic Regent
2d Cir. · 1979 · confidence medium
Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2 Cir.1978) (Feinberg, J.). 9 In that case, an Iranian citizen sued for breach of a contract between him and an Iranian subsidiary of various American and European oil companies.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alcoa Steamship Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent
2d Cir. · 1978 · confidence medium
Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2 Cir. 1978) (Feinberg, J.). 9 In that case, an Iranian citizen sued for breach of a contract between him and an Iranian subsidiary of various American and European oil companies.
cited Cited "see" Phillips v. Reed Group, Ltd.
S.D.N.Y. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 437 F.Supp. 910, 916 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (noting the distinction between Section 1404 and forum non conveniens), aff'd, 588 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.1978).
cited Cited "see" Keitt v. New York City
S.D.N.Y. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 437 F.Supp. 910, 916 (S.D.N.Y.1977) (noting the distinction between Section 1404 and forum non conveniens), aff'd, 588 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.1978).
discussed Cited "see" Johnson v. G.D. Searle & Co. (2×)
Md. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 437 F.Supp. 910 (S.D.N.Y.1977), aff'd, 588 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.1978); Kelce v. Touche Ross & Co., 37 Colo.App. 352 , 549 P.2d 415 , rev’d on other grounds, 192 Colo. 202 , 557 P.2d 374 (1976); MacLeod v. MacLeod, 383 A.2d 39 (Me.1978).
discussed Cited "see" Jennings v. Boeing Co.
E.D. Pa. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1978) (foreign plaintiff’s right to sue in United States is of equal magnitude as that of United States citizen where “equal access to courts” treaty provision exists); Grimandi v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 512 F.Supp. 764, 778 (D.Kan.1981).
cited Cited "see" Maria Arlete Vaz Borralho v. Keydril Company, Key International Drilling Company, Ltd. And Key Perfuracoes Maritimas, Ltda.
5th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 437 F.Supp. 910, 917-918 (S.D.N.Y., 1977), aff'd, 588 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.1980) (distinguishing Tivoli on somewhat similar grounds).
cited Cited "see" Lake Ex Rel. Lake v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc.
N.D. Ohio · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir. 1978).
discussed Cited "see" Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (2×)
SCOTUS · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 437 F. Supp. 910, 924 (SDNY 1977), aff'd., 588 F. 2d 880 (CA2 1978).
cited Cited "see" Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co.
3rd Cir. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir. 1978). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Flores v. Southern Peru Copper Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.1978) (dismissing suit by Iranian national on basis of forum non conveniens despite treaty that mandated court access equivalent to that of American citizen).
cited Cited "see, e.g." San Shoe Trading Corp. v. Converse Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 437 F.Supp. 910, 925 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (Carter, J.), aff’d, 588 F.2d 880 (2d Cir.1978) (Iranian law). 9 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Tomaslav Zekic v. Reading & Bates Drilling Co.
5th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880 (2d Cir. 1978); Fitzgerald v. Texaco, Inc., 521 F.2d 448 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1052 , 96 S.Ct. 781 , 46 L.Ed.2d 641 (1976); Garis v. Compania Maritima San Basilio, S. A., 386 F.2d 155 (2d Cir. 1967); Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co., 479 F.Supp. 727 (M.D.Pa.1979), rev’d on other grounds, 630 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1980), rev’d, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 252 , 70 L.Ed.2d 419 (1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Abolbashar Farmanfarmaian
v.
Gulf Oil Corporation, Mobil Oil Corporation, Exxon Corporation, Texaco Inc., American Independent Oil Company, Atlantic Richfield Company, Continental Oil Company, Getty Oil Company, Charter Oil Company, Standard Oil Company of California and Standard Oil Company of Ohio
77-7507.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 18, 1978.
588 F.2d 880
Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 59%
Citer courts: Second Circuit (2)

588 F.2d 880

Abolbashar FARMANFARMAIAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GULF OIL CORPORATION, Mobil Oil Corporation, Exxon
Corporation, Texaco Inc., American Independent Oil Company,
Atlantic Richfield Company, Continental Oil Company, Getty
Oil Company, Charter Oil Company, Standard Oil Company of
California and Standard Oil Company of Ohio, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 5, Docket 77-7507.

United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.

Argued Oct. 23, 1978.
Decided Dec. 18, 1978.

Martin Kleinbard, New York City (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City, Robert S. Smith, Adele R. Wailand, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.

John A. Donovan, New York City (Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, New York City, Otis Pratt Pearsall, Ronald J. Tabak, New York City, of counsel), for defendants-appellees American Independent Oil Co., Atlantic Richfield Co., Charter Oil Co., Continental Oil Co., Getty Oil Co. and The Standard Oil Co. of Ohio.

Sullivan & Cromwell, New York City (Robert MacCrate and James R. DeVita, New York City, of counsel), Albert P. Lindemann, Jr., New York City, for defendant-appellee Exxon Corp.

Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, New York City (A. Vernon Carnahan, John P. Casaly and Susan Manca, New York City, of counsel), H. Francis Shattuck and David H. Finnie, New York City, for defendant-appellee Mobil Oil Corp.

Lord, Day & Lord, New York City (John W. Castles, 3d and Eugene F. Bannigan, New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee Standard Oil Co. of California.

Edward F. Gilhooly, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant-appellee Gulf Oil Corp.

Charles F. Kazlauskas, Jr. and Lawrence R. Jerz, White Plains, N. Y., for defendant-appellee Texaco Inc.

Before FEINBERG and MULLIGAN, Circuit Judges, and PRATT, District judge.[*]

FEINBERG, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Robert L. Carter, J., conditionally dismissing on forum non conveniens grounds this action for breach of contract and tortious interference with contract rights. We affirm.

[*~880]1

This lawsuit is brought by Dr. Abolbashar Farmanfarmaian, an Iranian citizen and attorney, against eleven American Oil companies. The facts are set out in greater detail in Judge Carter's full and thoughtful opinion, reported at 437 F.Supp. 910 (S.D.N.Y.1977). The following will suffice here. The district court found that the action arises from the breach of a 1971 written agreement between plaintiff and the Iranian Investment Corporation, an Iranian subsidiary owned by the oil company defendants (40%) and three European oil companies (60%). The agreement allegedly provided an option for repurchase by plaintiff, and others affiliated with him, of a one-third stock interest in Pazargad Chemical Company, an Iranian petro-chemical manufacturer, for approximately $765,000.[1] Such repurchase would have allowed plaintiff to regain the control of Pazargad he had before refinancing needs forced him to relinquish it in 1965. Allegedly, the breach of this option agreement to repurchase the stock was the product of pressure from the Iranian government in the course of negotiating the new oil agreement of July 19, 1973 between Iran and the American oil company defendants and the three European oil companies. The stock was allegedly transferred instead to the Iranian government's oil corporation.

2

After allowing plaintiff to take discovery for nine months on the connection this dispute has with New York, including efforts to assess whether relevant evidence and witnesses are present here, Judge Carter dismissed this action on forum non conveniens grounds on condition

3

(1) that the defendants waive any defense that they might have relating to any statute of limitations that did not exist prior to the initiation of suit in this district; (2) that the defendants consent to the jurisdiction of the Iranian courts, and that they submit to service of process in Iran, which shall take place within 90 days from the filing of this opinion.

4

437 F.Supp. at 928. The judge based dismissal on the following:

5

Since these agreements were reached in Iran, between Iranian parties and concerning the shares of an Iranian manufacturer (Pazargard), it is clear that evidence of the breach itself assuming that one took place must come primarily from Iran, and the major witnesses whose testimony may be needed concerning this breach will also most likely come from there. In addition, defendants have contended that the transfer . . . of the Pazargad shares to (the Iranian government's oil corporation) was Compelled by the Iranian government; and while plaintiff alleges that (transfer) was merely Induced by Iran . . . , any resolution of plaintiff's claims would of necessity require first some conclusion as to the role of the Iranian government in these events. The proof as to that point, obviously, would come primarily from Iran.

6

Aside from these factors, which by themselves weigh heavily toward declining jurisdiction in favor of Iran, it must be recognized that the validity of plaintiff's claims must be determined under Iranian and not American law. Having already had occasion in this case to examine Iranian law at least preliminarily, I know from first-hand experience what a difficult task it is to reach any conclusion as to its substance.

7

437 F.Supp. at 923-24 (Emphasis in original; footnotes omitted). Judge Carter found, in conclusion, that despite plaintiff's opportunity to discover facts to back up his claim that the Southern District is a convenient forum, "(t)he case for dismissal . . . remains overwhelming." 437 F.Supp. at 925.

8

While we believe that the issue whether the action should have been dismissed is perhaps somewhat closer than Judge Carter suggested, we affirm the dismissal without much pause because a district judge has wide discretion in this area, Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947); Schertenleib v. Traum, 589 F.2d 1156 (2d Cir. 1978), and here there is no "clear showing" of abuse of that discretion, Fitzgerald v. Texaco, Inc., 521 F.2d 448, 451 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1052, 96 S.Ct. 781, 46 L.Ed.2d 641 (1976).

9

A great deal of Judge Carter's opinion was devoted to plaintiff's claim, disputed by defendants, that plaintiff could not have sued defendants in Iran as a matter of right under Iranian jurisdictional law, and therefore Iran does not satisfy the alternative forum prerequisite for invocation of the forum non conveniens doctrine as enunciated in Gulf Oil, supra, 330 U.S. at 506-07, 67 S.Ct. 839, even though defendants now consent to suit there. For the reasons stated in our recent opinion in Schertenleib v. Traum, 589 F.2d 1156 (2d Cir. 1978), we hold, as Judge Carter did, that there was no reason to determine whether defendants were initially subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of Iran. Once defendants consented to suit in Iran, and Judge Carter found that there was an existing alternative forum, he had the power to apply the forum non conveniens doctrine after balancing all of the relevant considerations.

10

We feel constrained to comment, however, on statements in the judge's opinion to the effect that a foreign plaintiff's "right to sue in the United States is clearly of a lesser magnitude than that of an American citizen."437 F.Supp. at 923, 927. Whatever the merits of that proposition generally, which does find some support in cases suggesting that our courts should be quite cautious in dismissing on forum non conveniens grounds when suit is brought by an American citizen, see, e. g., Olympic Corp. v. Societe Generale,462 F.2d 376, 378 (2d Cir. 1972), we think it has no application where, as here, a treaty between the United States and the foreign plaintiff's country allows nationals of both countries access to each country's courts on terms no less favorable than those applicable to nationals of the court's country. 8 United States Treaties and Other International Agreements 900, 902-03 (1957). Our view on this point in no way affects the district court's disposition of the case because the judge applied the same forum non conveniens standards as would be applied were the plaintiff an American citizen.

[*~881]11

In conclusion, we hold that the district court had the power to dismiss the case on forum non conveniens grounds, and we affirm the exercise of Judge Carter's discretion in dismissing the case.

*

Hon. George C. Pratt of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation

1

This figure comes from the complaint filed in November 1975, and is apparently based on the then current exchange rate for approximately 50 million Rials