Gulf Oil Corporation vs. Gilbert 330 US 501 Argued December 1 ! 1"! 1"#$ Decided %arc& 10!

1"#' (acts) *&e case arose +&en a fire gutted a +are&ouse o+ned and operated b, t&e plaintiff. *&e allegations provide t&at t&e defendant carelessl, &andled a deliver, of gasoline to &is +are&ouse tan-s and pumps as to cause an e.plosion and fire +&ic& consumed t&e +&ole +are&ouse toget&er +it& t&e merc&andise of &is customers. *&e plaintiff as-s for a /udgment amounting to 03$5!51".'' in damages. *&e brea-do+n of +&ic& are t&e follo+ing) 2130#1! ".10 damage to &is +are&ouse +&ic& +as totall, consumed4 213 03!$01.#0 destro,ed merc&andise and fi.tures to &is damage4 233 010!030 in/ur, to &is business and profits4 2#3 0300!000 +ort& of burned propert, of customers in &is custod, t&roug& t&e +are&ousing agreement4 253 costs! disbursements! and interests from t&e date of t&e fire. *&e plaintiff broug&t t&e case in Sout&ern District of 5e+ 6or- despite living in 7,nc&burg! 8iriginia and +&ere t&e +are&ouse is located. On t&e one &and! t&e defendant is a corporation organi9ed under t&e la+s of :enns,lvania and is ;ualified to do business bot& in 5e+ 6or- and 8irginia. <t &as officials designated to eac& state as agents to receive service of process. =&en t&e defendant +as sued! it invo-ed t&e doctrine of forum non conveniens. <t claimed t&at t&e 8irginia is t&e appropriate place for trial because it is +&ere t&e plaintiff lives! +&ere t&e defendant does &is business! +&ere all t&e events of t&e litigation too- place! +&ere most of t&e +itnesses reside! and +&ere bot& t&e state and federal courts are available to t&e plaintiff and are able to obtain /urisdiction of t&e defendant. 5o (ederal ;uestion is involved and +as broug&t to t&e United States District Court solel, on t&e issue of diversit, of citi9ens&ip of t&e parties. *&e district court dismissed t&e case citing t&e >rie ?ailroad Co. vs *omp-ins and considered t&e t&at t&e la+ of 5e+ 6or- is forum non conveniens applied and s&ould be left to 8irginia Courts. @o+ever! t&e Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed as to t&e applicabilit, of 5e+ 6or- la+! too- a restrictive vie+ of t&e application of t&e entire doctrine in federal courts. <t reversed t&e district court. @ence! certiorari +as filed. <ssue) =&et&er t&e United States District Court &as in&erent po+er to dismiss a suit pursuant to t&e doctrine of forum non conveniens. ?uling) 6es. *&e district court &as t&e po+er to dismiss a suit pursuant to t&e doctrine of forum non conveniens. As s&o+n b, several /urisprudence! t&e US courts are allo+ed to decline

/urisdiction on cases rig&tfull, under its /urisdiction on e.ceptional circumstances! one of +&ic& is t&e application of forum non conveniens. *&e doctrine provides t&at a court ma, relin;uis& its /urisdiction to &ear a case +&en suc& c&oice in venue to file t&e case causes inconvenience or burden to one of t&e parties or +&en t&e c&oice in venue clearl, is a form of &arassment to t&e adverse part,. Also! t&e interests of fair pla,! inconvenience on t&e part of t&e adverse part,! public interest! and t&e c&aracter or nature of t&e parties are to be balanced. <f t&e court sees a strong balance in favor of t&e adverse part,! it ma, appl, t&e doctrine. <n t&e case at bar! several factors +ere considered in order to appl, t&e doctrine. (irst! t&e plaintiff is not a resident of 5e+ 6or- and t&e tortious event &appened in 7,nc&burg! 8irginia. <n fact! t&e court +as candidl, told b, t&e plaintiff t&at t&e venue +as c&osen b, t&e insurance compan, for purposes of subrogation. Second! all t&e +itnesses! t&e customers of t&e plaintiff and t&ose t&at +ere part of negligent act live in 7,nc&burg! 8irginia. Onl, t&e la+,er for t&e plaintiff is said to be residing in 5e+ 6or-. *&ird! a trial in 8irginia +ould simplif, t&e proceedings. <f t&e proceeding is conducted in 8irginia! issues on conflicts of la+s ma, be avoided. @ence! given t&ese circumstances! t&e district court did not abuse its discretion in appl,ing t&e doctrine of forum non conveniens.