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
Quick Summary

A district court may apply the doctrine of forum non conveniens if defendants consent to an alternative forum and the court balances all relevant considerations.

An Iranian citizen brought a breach of contract and tortious interference action against American oil companies in a United States district court. The district court conditionally dismissed the action on forum non conveniens grounds because the underlying agreements were made in Iran, the primary witnesses and evidence were located in Iran, and the claims required the application of Iranian law. The court held that once defendants consent to suit in an alternative forum, the district court may apply the forum non conveniens doctrine by balancing relevant considerations. The court also noted that treaty provisions ensuring foreign nationals access to courts on terms no less favorable than domestic nationals must be considered.

106 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 21 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Serv. Co., 650 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1981)
Treatment trajectory · 1978 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1978 2002 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 882 Affirming dismissal under forum non conveniens doctrine28 citing cases“access to this country's courts on terms no less favorable than those applicable to nationals of the court's country.”2 citing courts quote it · 26 listed here
  • Sirleaf, Jr v. Clarke, No. 3:18-cv-00311, 2020 WL 1269787 (E.D. Va. Mar. 16, 2020).
    “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 cou…
  • Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc., 439 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2006).published
    (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)
  • Dr. Tassilo Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc., 439 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2006).published
    (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)
  • Pollux Holding Ltd. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, Springwell Navigation Corp. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, 329 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2003).published
    “access to each country’s courts on terms no less favorable than those applicable to nationals of the court’s country”
  • Ioannides v. Marika Mar. Corp., 928 F. Supp. 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1996).published
    Co., 654 F.2d at 153; Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir.1981).
  • Scottish Air Int'l, Inc. v. British Caledonian Grp., PLC, 81 F.3d 1224 (2d Cir. 1996).published
    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.
  • Dominic Murray v. British Broad. Corp., 81 F.3d 287 (2d Cir. 1996).published
    (treaty allowed nationals access to our courts “on terms no less favorable” than those applicable to American citizens)
  • Blanco v. Banco Indus. De Venezuela, 997 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1993).published 2 cites
    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).
  • Petroquimica de Venezuela, S.A. v. M/T Trade Resolve, 823 F. Supp. 143 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).published
    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.
  • Blanco v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela, S.A., 997 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1993).published 2 cites
    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).
Show 16 more citing cases
  • Doe v. Hyland Therapeutics Div., 807 F. Supp. 1117 (S.D.N.Y. 1992).published
    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).
  • James v. Gulf Int'l Marine Corp., 777 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1985).published 2 cites
    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 1…
  • In the Matter of Arbitration Between Maria Victoria Naviera, S.A., Petitioner v. Cementos Del Valle, S.A., & Materiales Los Alpes, S.A., 759 F.2d 1027 (2d Cir. 1985).published
    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).
  • Irish Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Aer Lingus Teoranta, 739 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1984).published
    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).
  • Gibbons v. Udaras Na Gaeltachta, 549 F. Supp. 1094 (S.D.N.Y. 1982).published
    (affording plaintiffs choice of forum greater weight on account of plaintiffs status, by treaty, as a United States citizen, notwithstanding fact that plaintiff resided in Iran)
  • Pain v. United Tech. Corp., 637 F.2d 775 (D.C. Cir. 1980).published
    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).
  • Calavo Growers Of California v. Generali Belgium, 632 F.2d 963 (2d Cir. 1980).published 3 cites
    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…
  • Calavo Growers v. Belgium, 632 F.2d 963 (2d Cir. 1980).published 3 cites
    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…
  • Reyno v. Piper Aircraft Co., 630 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1980).published 2 cites
    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…
  • Ionescu v. E. F. Hutton & Co. (France) S. A., 465 F. Supp. 139 (S.D.N.Y. 1979).published
    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…
  • Alcoa S.S. Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 165 (2d Cir. 1979).published
    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.
  • Alcoa S.S. Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 165 (2d Cir. 1978).published
    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.
  • Jennings v. Boeing Co., 660 F. Supp. 796 (E.D. Pa. 1987).published
    (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)
  • Lake ex rel. Lake v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 538 F. Supp. 262 (N.D. Ohio 1982).published
    See Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 882 (2d Cir. 1978).
  • Alcoa S.S. Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147 (2d Cir. 1980).published
  • Alcoa S.S. Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent, 654 F.2d 147 (2d Cir. 1978).published
At page 881 Dismissal of suit based on forum non conveniens7 citing casesdismissing suit by Iranian national on the basis of forum non conveniens despite treaty that mandated court access equivalent to American citizen2 citing courts put it this way
  • Kurzke v. Nissan Motor Corp., 727 A.2d 481 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1999).published
    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…
  • Blanco v. Banco Indus. De Venezuela, 997 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1993).published 2 cites
    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).
  • Blanco v. Banco Indus. de Venezuela, S.A., 997 F.2d 974 (2d Cir. 1993).published 2 cites
    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).
  • Reginald H. Howe v. Goldcorp Investments, Ltd., 946 F.2d 944 (1st Cir. 1991).published
    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…
  • Ferruzzi Italia, S.P.A. v. Trade & Transp., Inc., 683 F. Supp. 131 (D. Md. 1988).published
    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 .
  • Crimson Semiconductor, Inc. v. Electronum, 629 F. Supp. 903 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).published
    See, e.g., Pain, 637 F.2d at 785 ; Farmanfarmaian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 588 F.2d 880, 881 (2d Cir.1978).
  • Fosen v. United Tech. Corp., 484 F. Supp. 490 (S.D.N.Y. 1980).published
    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).
Other citing cases6 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
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
No. 5, Docket 77-7507.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Dec 18, 1978.
Published opinion
588 F.2d 880
1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 6912
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 defendantappellee 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 defendantappellee Mobil Oil Corp., Lord, Day & Lord, New York City (John W. Castles, 3d and Eugene F. Bannigan, New York City, of counsel), for defendantappellee 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 defendantappellee Texaco Inc.
Feinberg.
Cited by 54 opinions  |  Published
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.

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.

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

(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.

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

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.
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.

[*882] 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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.