USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 1 of 29
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1007
ADVANFORT COMPANY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
ZAMIL OFFSHORE SERVICES COMPANY; SAUDI PORTS AUTHORITY, a foreign sovereign State,
Defendants – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00906-LMB-IDD)
Argued: January 29, 2025 Decided: April 22, 2025
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge King wrote the majority opinion, in which Senior Judge Floyd joined. Judge Thacker wrote a dissenting opinion.
ARGUED: Benjamin L. Hatch, MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Richmond Turner Moore, WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Clara Brillembourg, Washington, D.C., Peter A. Sullivan, New York, New York, Andrew B. Loewenstein, Roseanna K. Loring, Matthew F. Casassa, Boston, Massachusetts, Stephen Robin, FOLEY HOAG LLP, Denver, Colorado, for Appellant. John S. Williams, Nicholas A. Maricic, Janae N. Staicer, USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 2 of 29
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee Zamil Offshore Services Company.
2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 3 of 29
KING, Circuit Judge:
In this appeal from the Eastern District of Virginia, plaintiff AdvanFort Company
(“AdvanFort”) challenges the district court’s December 1, 2023 dismissal of its complaint
against defendants Zamil Offshore Services Company (“Zamil”) and the Saudi Ports
Authority (the “Ports Authority”) on the basis of forum non conveniens. See AdvanFort
Co. v. Zamil Offshore Servs. Co., 704 F. Supp. 3d 669 (E.D. Va. 2023). On appeal,
AdvanFort primarily contends that the district court abused its discretion in determining
that the Saudi Arabian judicial system is a more convenient forum to litigate its tort claims
than AdvanFort’s choice of forum, the Eastern District of Virginia. AdvanFort also argues
that the court was procedurally barred from dismissing its complaint after the court had
entered default against the Ports Authority for its failure to appear.
Having carefully assessed the record and the parties’ briefs, and with the benefit of
oral argument, we are satisfied that the district court did not err in its dismissal of
AdvanFort’s complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens. We therefore affirm the
district court.
I.
A.
AdvanFort is a maritime security company headquartered in Fairfax County,
Virginia, that deploys vessels to protect oil tankers and other vulnerable ships from the
threats posed by piracy in international waters. In May 2012, AdvanFort deployed a former
British Naval vessel, the Seaman Guard Virginia (the “Virginia”), to perform contracted
3 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 4 of 29
anti-piracy services for commercial fleets in the Red Sea. While the Virginia was sailing
the Red Sea, AdvanFort determined that the vessel required routine maintenance and minor
repairs.
AdvanFort sought repair services from defendant Zamil, a company that provided
maritime construction and maintenance services from a leased shipyard (the “Jeddah
Shipyard”) at the Jeddah Islamic Port in Saudi Arabia. Zamil operated the Jeddah Shipyard
pursuant to a lease from the Ports Authority, a Saudi government entity. On October 19,
2013, AdvanFort docked the Virginia at the Jeddah Shipyard in what it describes as “in
good condition.” At some point in October 2013, Zamil proposed that it would undertake
electrical maintenance work on the Virginia, and AdvanFort agreed. On October 27, 2013
— while the Virginia was undergoing those electrical repairs — a fire broke out below the
vessel’s deck.
AdvanFort believed that the fire aboard the Virginia was caused by Zamil’s repair
personnel, and thus, in 2014, filed suit against Zamil and the Ports Authority in a Saudi
Arabian court. Zamil filed a countersuit against AdvanFort shortly thereafter. Three years
later — in April 2017 — the Saudi court issued a judgment dismissing AdvanFort’s claims
and awarding Zamil partial damages on its counterclaims. All the while, the Virginia
remained docked at the Jeddah Shipyard.
In early 2022, Zamil transferred the Virginia to a storage yard located within the
Jeddah Shipyard, claiming that the vessel was at risk of sinking, thereby creating an
environmental or safety hazard. In June 2022, Zamil informed AdvanFort that its lease
agreement with the Ports Authority was ending and that it would dispose of the Virginia if
4 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 5 of 29
AdvanFort did not retrieve the vessel. AdvanFort then dispatched a marine expert from
the United States to inspect the Virginia. The inspection revealed that the Virginia had
been stripped bare — a measure which Zamil claimed was necessary to facilitate the
transfer of the Virginia to its storage yard. In addition to the removal of the ship’s engines,
steering equipment, and anchors, the inspection observed that the Jeddah Shipyard had left
the Virginia’s windows and hatches open, causing the ship to rust.
B.
1.
On July 12, 2023, AdvanFort filed a five-count complaint in the district court for
the Eastern District of Virginia against Zamil and the Ports Authority for conversion,
breach of bailment, negligence, and gross negligence. It sought damages for the loss of the
Virginia, plus damages for the loss of profits resulting from AdvanFort’s inability to deploy
the vessel due to its unserviceable condition.
AdvanFort properly served process on the Ports Authority, a subdivision of the
Saudi Arabian government, pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. See 28
U.S.C. § 1608. 1 To effectuate service of process, AdvanFort requested that the Clerk of
Court mail a service package containing the summons, complaint, and notice of suit to the
1 Section 1608 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act requires “[s]ervice in the courts of the United States . . . upon a foreign state or political subdivision of a foreign state” be made by “sending a copy of the summons and complaint and a notice of suit, together with a translation of each into the official language of the foreign state, by any form of mail requiring a signed receipt, to be addressed and dispatched by the clerk of court to the head of the ministry of foreign affairs of the foreign state concerned.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1608(a), (a)(3).
5 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 6 of 29
head of Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on September
11, 2023. The service package was delivered to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on
September 25, 2023, where it was accepted and signed for by an authorized representative
of the Ministry. 2
Zamil waived service on September 29, 2023. It then moved to dismiss AdvanFort’s
complaint in the Eastern District of Virginia on the grounds of forum non conveniens and
for lack of personal jurisdiction, contending that the Saudi courts are a more convenient
forum to litigate AdvanFort’s claims. On October 30, 2023, AdvanFort opposed Zamil’s
motion and moved for limited discovery relating to forum non conveniens and personal
jurisdiction.
In opposition to Zamil’s motion to dismiss, AdvanFort primarily argued that the
Saudi courts are unavailable and inadequate. In doing so, it contended that the Saudi courts
are neither independent nor impartial, and that no Saudi tribunal was available for it to
litigate its claims against the Ports Authority and Zamil in a single action. To support its
claims of inadequacy, AdvanFort cited various publicly sourced documents and tendered
the opinion of an expert witness to argue that the Saudi courts would subject AdvanFort to
2 Service of process under 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a)(3) is deemed made “as of the date of receipt indicated in the certification, signed and returned postal receipt, or other proof of service applicable to the method of service employed.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1608(c)(2). Pursuant to § 1608, service on the Ports Authority occurred on September 25, 2023, when the service package was signed for at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. See Republic of Sudan v. Harrison, 139 S. Ct. 1048, 1059 (2019) (explaining that “service is deemed to have occurred on the date shown on a document signed by the person who received it from the carrier”).
6 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 7 of 29
unfair treatment and deprive it of all remedies. Those arguments included, inter alia, that
lawyers and witnesses face retribution for supporting lawsuits opposing the Saudi
government or its allied families; that judges, lawyers, and critics of the Saudi justice
system have been detained or tortured; that the Saudi government is currently prosecuting
multiple judges for “high treason,” on the basis that those judges have issued judgments
perceived as adverse to the government; and that witnesses are treated unfairly or
discredited based on their gender or religion.
Although Zamil moved to dismiss AdvanFort’s complaint, the Ports Authority
failed to appear in the Eastern District of Virginia within the 60-day time limit mandated
by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 1608(d). 3 On November 30,
2023, AdvanFort requested entry of default against the Ports Authority for its failure to
respond to the complaint or otherwise appear.
2.
On December 1, 2023, the district court conducted a hearing on Zamil’s motion to
dismiss. Before turning to the merits of Zamil’s motion, the court acknowledged that the
Ports Authority had failed to file a responsive pleading or otherwise appear in the
proceedings, and was therefore in default. Later that day, the court directed the Clerk to
file an entry of default against the Ports Authority, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
3 Section 1608(d) of Title 28 requires that “[i]n any action brought in a court of the United States or of a State, a foreign state, a political subdivision thereof, or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state shall serve an answer or other responsive pleading to the complaint within sixty days after service has been made under this section.”
7 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 8 of 29
Procedure 55(a) (“When a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought
has failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise,
the clerk must enter the party's default.”).
The district court then informed the parties that it intended to dismiss AdvanFort’s
complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens. The court thereafter denied AdvanFort’s
motion for limited discovery and dismissed its claims against Zamil and the defaulted Ports
Authority. Later that day, the court filed its Memorandum Opinion dismissing
AdvanFort’s complaint, concluding that the Saudi courts were available, adequate, and
more convenient in light of public and private interests involved, explaining that all the
relevant events had occurred in Saudi Arabia and all relevant evidence was located there.
In rendering its forum non conveniens decision, the district court first rejected
AdvanFort’s availability contentions, determining that “[n]either of AdvanFort’s
arguments preclude the [c]ourt from finding that Saudi courts are available to hear” the
action “[m]erely because the Ports Authority has not yet appeared” before the Eastern
Virginia court. See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 675-76. It also rejected AdvanFort’s
argument that the Saudi courts were unavailable because AdvanFort may be required to
pursue its claims against the Ports Authority and Zamil before separate tribunals — that is,
the Saudi Board of Grievances and the Saudi Commercial Court, respectively. Because
dismissal “would not force AdvanFort to litigate in two different countries” — and because
together those separate tribunals possess jurisdiction to hear and resolve AdvanFort’s
claims — the court found that “the Saudi courts provide[d] an available forum to resolve
AdvanFort’s claims against both defendants.” Id. at 676.
8 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 9 of 29
The district court then turned to and assessed the adequacy of the Saudi courts. After
considering AdvanFort’s arguments regarding corrupt practices in the Saudi courts, the
court determined that those assertions were generalized allegations that were insufficient
to support the proposition that the Saudi courts were inadequate. To illustrate that the Saudi
courts were capable of fairly adjudicating AdvanFort’s claims, the court pointed to and
emphasized the parties’ prior litigation in Saudi Arabia, observing that “although the
[Saudi] court dismissed AdvanFort’s claims, it awarded Zamil . . . less than one-third” of
the repair fees Zamil had sought in its countersuit. See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 676-
77.
The district court then turned to the public and private interests at stake in the
litigation, ultimately concluding that both weighed in favor of dismissing on the basis of
forum non conveniens. The court explained that the private interest factors favored
litigating the dispute in the Saudi courts. Although the court recognized that AdvanFort
had brought suit in its home forum of Virginia, it nevertheless “partially discounted”
AdvanFort’s citizenship in the United States and the presumptive effect of its choice of
forum because AdvanFort had elected to do business abroad in Saudi Arabia. See
AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 678. And “[b]ecause the relevant conduct occurred in Saudi
Arabia” — not the United States — and because AdvanFort was not in Saudi Arabia when
the alleged damage to the vessel occurred,” the court recognized that “the parties will need
to rely on physical and testimonial evidence” located in Saudi Arabia. Id. at 678. The
court also explained that, given the claims at issue, it was likely that the litigation would
9 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 10 of 29
involve third-party witnesses who would not be under the control of either party and over
whom a Virginia court would lack authority to compel testimony.
The district court similarly found that the public interest factors weighed in favor of
litigating AdvanFort’s claims in Saudi Arabia. The court explained that, at bottom,
AdvanFort’s “action is about a vessel in Saudi Arabia that was allegedly damaged by a
Saudi company, with Saudi employees, in a Saudi shipyard in Saudi Arabia.” See
AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 679. The Commonwealth of Virginia, therefore, had “little
local interest in a case involving an alleged tort arising from performance of a contract
overseas.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). And, in any event, the court would need
to apply Saudi law to AdvanFort’s claims under Virginia’s choice of law statute. Id.
(explaining that Virginia’s choice of law statute mandates that a “court must apply the law
of the place where the last event necessary to make an action liable for an alleged tort takes
place”).
In sum, after assessing the threshold questions of availability and adequacy, and
then weighing the public and private interests at stake in the matter, the district court
determined that Saudi Arabia was a more convenient forum for AdvanFort’s litigation. It
therefore dismissed AdvanFort’s complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens.
AdvanFort has timely appealed the district court’s dismissal of its complaint, and
we possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
10 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 11 of 29
II.
We review a district court’s dismissal based on the doctrine of forum non
conveniens for abuse of discretion, “disturbing its decision only when it failed to consider
a material factor or clearly erred in evaluating the factors before it, or did not hold the
defendants to their burden of persuasion on all elements of the forum non conveniens
analysis.” See Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 731 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation
marks and alterations omitted). “[A]bsent a ‘clear abuse of discretion,’ the district court’s
‘decision deserves substantial deference.’” See dmarcian, Inc. v. dmarcian Europe BV, 60
F.4th 119, 136 (4th Cir. 2023) (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257
(1981)).
III.
On appeal, AdvanFort maintains that the district court abused its discretion in
dismissing the AdvanFort complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens, and thus argues
that these proceedings should be litigated in the Eastern District of Virginia.
A federal court has the discretion to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non
conveniens where another forum is more appropriate for adjudicating a dispute,
considering “the factual and legal issues of the underlying dispute.” See Sinochem Int’l
Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 423 (2007) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The forum non conveniens doctrine requires a court to consider whether
an alternative forum is “available” or “adequate” and, if so, whether the alternative forum
is “more convenient in light of the public and private interests involved.” See Jiali Tang
11 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 12 of 29
v. Synutra Int’l, Inc., 656 F.3d 242, 248 (4th Cir. 2011). The moving party bears the burden
of showing that an adequate alternative forum exists. See Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724,
731 (4th Cir. 2010).
And as we have recited previously, a forum non conveniens determination is
“committed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” and we therefore afford its decision
substantial deference. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257 (1981). We
discern no abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling that its forum non conveniens
inquiry in this matter favors a Saudi Arabian forum, and we therefore affirm the dismissal
of AdvanFort’s claims against Zamil and the Ports Authority on that basis, without
addressing the parties’ contentions regarding personal jurisdiction. 4
Before assessing the district court’s dismissal on the merits, we must address
AdvanFort’s claim that the court was precluded from dismissing its complaint because the
Ports Authority was in default. As AdvanFort asserts, an entry of default limits the
defenses available to the defaulting defendant and, thus, the Ports Authority was not
4 The district court declined to reach and resolve Zamil’s arguments regarding a lack of personal jurisdiction over the defendants after rendering its decision to dismiss AdvanFort’s complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens. As the Supreme Court has held, “[a] district court . . . may dispose of an action by a forum non conveniens dismissal, bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.” See Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 422. In light of the district court’s decision to dismiss AdvanFort’s complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens, we decline to reach the issues regarding personal jurisdiction raised on appeal.
12 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 13 of 29
entitled to raise or benefit from its codefendant Zamil’s assertion of the procedural defense
of forum non conveniens. We are constrained to disagree.
As we have explained, “federal courts possess certain implied or inherent powers
that ‘are necessary to the exercise of all others.’” See United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d
220, 236 (4th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34
(1812)). More specifically, we have recognized that a district court has “the inherent
authority to control various aspects of the cases before that court,” including the ability to
“dismiss a lawsuit sua sponte . . . on [the] grounds of forum non conveniens.” Id. at 236-
37; see also Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 509 (1947). With those principles in
mind, we discern no reasonable basis for us to limit the district court’s inherent authority
to dismiss this action on the basis of forum non conveniens, simply because the Ports
Authority failed to move for dismissal.
Moreover, our Court has adhered to the longstanding principle that “if the suit
should be decided against the complainant on the merits, the bill will be dismissed as to all
the defendants alike — the defaulter as well as the others.” See Frow v. De La Vega, 82
U.S. 552, 554 (1872). We have thus recognized that where “a defending party establishes
that [a] plaintiff has no cause of action or present right of recovery, this defense generally
inures also to the benefit of a defaulting defendant.” See U.S. ex rel. Hudson v. Peerless
Ins. Co., 374 F.2d 942, 945 (4th Cir. 1967) (internal citations omitted); see also, e.g., Equip.
Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Traverse Comput. Brokers, 973 F.2d 345, 348 (4th Cir. 1992) (explaining
that when action against defaulting codefendant “was ultimately dismissed, it is not
vulnerable to judgment”). And although our Court has not applied this principle in the
13 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 14 of 29
circumstances presented here, we see no reason to ignore our precedent merely because the
contested decision to dispose of AdvanFort’s action was based on “a non-merits ground
for dismissal.” See Sinochem, 549 U.S. at 432 (explaining that a dismissal on the basis of
forum non conveniens “is a determination that the merits should be adjudicated
elsewhere”).
Indeed, it would be “absurd” and “unreasonable to hold” that a district court is
precluded from dismissing an action against a defaulting codefendant “where the court is
satisfied from the proofs offered by the other” that a more convenient forum exists. See
Frow, 82 U.S. at 554. As made clear by its decision, the district court was satisfied that
Zamil had satisfied its burden of establishing an available and adequate alternative forum
as to both defendants. At the outset of its decision — and after recognizing that the Ports
Authority was in default — the court concluded that its forum non conveniens analysis
would equally apply to both Zamil and the Ports Authority. See AdvanFort Co. v. Zamil
Offshore Servs. Co., 704 F. Supp. 3d 669, 675 (E.D. Va. 2023). The court then carefully
analyzed the threshold factors of availability and adequacy with respect to Zamil and the
Ports Authority, ultimately concluding that those factors weighed in favor of AdvanFort
litigating its claims against both defendants in the Saudi courts. E.g., id. at 675-77. We
therefore cannot say that the court erred in applying its analysis equally to each defendant,
or in ruling that Zamil had satisfied its burden of establishing that the Saudi courts are the
more convenient forum.
Accordingly, we decline to adopt AdvanFort’s view that the district court erred in
dismissing the claims against the defaulted Ports Authority.
14 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 15 of 29
Having determined that the district court did not err in dismissing AdvanFort’s
complaint when the Ports Authority was in default, we will turn to and assess the district
court’s forum non conveniens ruling. AdvanFort contends that the district court committed
reversible error in ruling that the Saudi courts are an available and adequate forum. It also
contends that the district court erred in the final step of its forum non conveniens inquiry
by improperly balancing the public and private interest factors at stake in this litigation.
These errors, AdvanFort maintains, amount to an abuse of the court’s discretion.
“At the outset of any forum non conveniens inquiry, the court must determine
whether there exists an alternate forum.” See Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 254 n.22
(internal quotation marks omitted). “Ordinarily, this requirement will be satisfied when
the defendant is ‘amenable to process’ in the other jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Gulf Oil Corp.,
330 at 506-07). And, importantly, “the alternate forum must be available as to all
defendants” — that is, all parties must come under the jurisdiction of the foreign forum.
See Galustian, 591 F.3d at 731 (citing Alpine View Co. v. Atlas Copco AB, 205 F.3d 208,
221 (5th Cir. 2000)).
As the district court explained, AdvanFort “does not contest that Saudi courts would
have jurisdiction over both defendants.” See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 675. Rather,
AdvanFort claims that the Saudi courts are rendered unavailable because it may be forced
to bring its claims against Zamil and the Ports Authority in two different tribunals, both
located in the city of Jeddah: The Commercial Court and the Board of Grievances,
15 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 16 of 29
respectively. 5 The Board of Grievances, as AdvanFort argues, exercises “exclusive
jurisdiction over administrative cases and lawsuits filed against government bodies” like
the Ports Authority. See Appellant’s Br. 27. And AdvanFort maintains that “the Ports
Authority cannot be brought before the Commercial Court,” where its claims against Zamil
would be litigated. Id. at 28.
AdvanFort thus urges us to hold that a defendant moving for dismissal on the basis
of forum non conveniens bears the burden of identifying a single available alternative
forum. Our precedent, however, does not go so far as to demand that a defendant must
identify a single tribunal in a foreign jurisdiction where all claims brought by a plaintiff
may be heard and resolved. Rather, we require only that a defendant provide more than
generalized evidence to demonstrate that “the alternative forum is better,” i.e., available.
See Kontoulas v. A.H. Robins Co., Inc., 745 F.2d 312, 316 (4th Cir. 1984) (explaining that
letter suggesting Maryland physician “will consent to personal jurisdiction in Australia”
was insufficient to establish available alternative forum); see also Galustian, 591 F.3d at
730-31 (vacating forum non conveniens dismissal as premature where “no evidence was
proffered regarding the availability of the forum” as to codefendant). And although we
have recognized that a defendant can meet its availability burden by “indicat[ing] which
court provides the alternative forum,” instead of merely “suggest[ing] the country,” we
5 AdvanFort’s expert witness observed that “[i]t appears” from filings in the parties’ prior Saudi litigation that “the Commercial Court in these cases was located within the Board of Grievances, as the Board of Grievances address is listed. Though in the same location, the two venues are legally distinct.” See J.A. 239 n.34.
16 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 17 of 29
have not required anything beyond a showing that all parties are “amenable to process in
the other jurisdiction.” See Kontoulas, 745 F.2d at 316; Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at
254 n.22.
In light of our precedent, we cannot say that the district court’s availability analysis
was improper — particularly where, as the court recognized, “the parties’ Saudi Arabian
attorneys dispute whether AdvanFort would have to sue each defendant in a different Saudi
tribunal.” See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 676. Despite this disagreement, this was not
a case where “the record before the court was so fragmentary that it [was] impossible to
make a sound determination.” See El-Fadl v. Central Bank of Jordan, 75 F.3d 668, 677
(D.C. Cir. 1996) (explaining that defendants “must provide enough information to enable
the District Court to evaluate alternative forum”) (internal citations omitted). Indeed, our
review of the record demonstrates that Zamil provided detailed information in its expert’s
affidavit regarding the availability of the Saudi courts. See, e.g., J.A. 323-24 (explaining
that a claimant is allowed “to request that the [Board of Grievances] involve another party
in the case”). Only after reviewing the evidence did the court decide to credit the opinion
of Zamil’s Saudi legal expert, who had explained that the Board of Grievances has the
discretion to hear claims against both the Ports Authority and Zamil. We discern no
instance in the court’s analysis demonstrating that it “did not hold the defendants to their
burden of persuasion” on this issue. See Galustian, 591 F.3d at 731.
Moreover, the district court correctly recognized that, in circumstances where
“courts have denied motions to dismiss for forum non conveniens,” those courts did so
only “when dismissing the actions would split claims against domestic defendants from
17 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 18 of 29
foreign defendants, thereby forcing plaintiffs to litigate in two different countries.” See
AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 676 (explaining that AdvanFort “cite[d] inapposite cases”). 6
The court then reasoned that — unlike in the decisions it reviewed — “dismissing this
action would not force AdvanFort to litigate in two different countries.” Id. “[A]nd
because together the Board of Grievances and the Commercial Court have jurisdiction to
hear AdvanFort’s claims against defendants,” the Saudi courts are available “to resolve
AdvanFort’s claims against both defendants.” Id. We cannot say, therefore, that the
court’s ruling constituted an abuse of its discretion. We thus agree that the Saudi courts
provide an available alternative forum to litigate AdvanFort’s claims.
AdvanFort next argues that the district court erred in evaluating the Saudi courts’
adequacy as an alternative forum. Specifically, AdvanFort contends that the court
misconstrued its claims of judicial corruption and unfairness as “generalized” or
“anecdotal,” thereby disregarding the detailed evidence from its expert witness supporting
those claims. See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 676-78. We find no merit to AdvanFort’s
contentions.
6 Our sister circuits appear to have routinely declined to find that an available forum exists in instances where a dismissal for forum non conveniens would result in the parties being “splintered” across different countries. See DIRTT Env’t Sols., Inc. v. Falkbuilt Ltd., 65 F.4th 547, 554 (10th Cir. 2023); see also Associacao Brasileira de Medicina de Grupo v. Stryker Corp., 891 F.3d 615, 621 (6th Cir. 2018); Fischer v. Magyar Allamvasutak Zrt., 777 F.3d 847, 867 (7th Cir. 2015).
18 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 19 of 29
As with the other forum non conveniens factors, the burden is on the defendant to
demonstrate that a foreign forum is adequate — or, in other words, that “all parties can
come within that forum’s jurisdiction, and the parties will not be deprived of all remedies
or treated unfairly.” See Tang, 656 F.3d at 249. We recognize, however, that “rare
circumstances” exist “where the remedy offered by the other forum is clearly
unsatisfactory.” See Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 254 n.22. In those circumstances, “the
other forum may not be an adequate alternative, and the initial requirement may not be
satisfied.” Id.
Initially, we observe that AdvanFort does not contest that the Saudi courts permit
the litigation of this dispute. AdvanFort instead argues that the Saudi legal system is
corrupt and thus incapable of adjudicating its dispute fairly. Although allegations such as
those AdvanFort advances are not to be taken lightly, we must emphasize that an adequate
forum need not be a perfect forum. See, e.g., Compania Naviera Joanna SA v. Koninklijke
Boskalis Westminster NV, 569 F.3d 189, 205 (finding adequate foreign forum despite
differences in limitation-of-liability process).
Indeed, courts have recognized that a forum is not rendered inadequate merely
because it applies less favorable substantive law, utilizes different adjudicatory procedures,
or because of general allegations of corruption in the forum’s judicial system. See
Compania Naviera, 569 F.3d at 202 (“[A] difference in the law in the two forums . . . is
not sufficient to bar application of the forum non conveniens doctrine.”); see also Lockman
Found. v. Evangelical All. Mission, 930 F.2d 764, 768 (9th Cir. 1991); Blanco v. Blanco
Indus. de Venezuela, 997 F.2d 974, 981-82 (2d Cir. 1993). And courts should be hesitant
19 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 20 of 29
“to pass value judgments on the adequacy of justice and the integrity” of a foreign forum’s
judicial system based only on “conclusory” allegations or “sweeping generalizations.” See
In re Arbitration Between Monegasque De Reassurances S.A.M. v. Nak Naftogaz of
Ukraine., 311 F.3d 488, 499 (2d Cir. 2002). As such, “anecdotal evidence of corruption
and delay provides [an] insufficient basis” for concluding that a foreign forum is
inadequate. See Tuazon v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 433 F.3d 1163, 1179 (9th Cir.
2006). Plaintiffs must instead demonstrate that they would face serious obstacles to
conducting litigation, such as “extreme amounts of partiality or inefficiency,” or “a
complete absence of due process or an inability of the forum to provide substantial justice
to the parties.” See Leon v. Million Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305, 1312 (11th Cir. 2001);
Monegasque, 311 F.3d at 499.
Our review of the record in this matter shows that the district court did not err in
determining that AdvanFort’s allegations were generalized or anecdotal, and therefore
insufficient to sustain its claims that the Saudi courts are incapable of adjudicating its
dispute. In assessing those allegations, the court reviewed numerous cases from other
jurisdictions where plaintiffs advanced similar claims. Although AdvanFort argues that
the court’s reliance on these cases — which it asserts are inapposite — is erroneous, we
are satisfied that the court’s thorough review of AdvanFort’s allegations was both
consistent and reasonable, considering the rulings of other courts and the nature of
AdvanFort’s claims.
We also identify no error in the district court’s weighing of AdvanFort’s prior Saudi
litigation. See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 676-77. The court was correct to point out
20 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 21 of 29
that the reduction of damages totalling nearly one-third of those sought by Zamil in its
countersuit “misaligns” with AdvanFort’s claims that “the Saudi judicial system, as a
whole, is corrupt and thus incapable of adjudicating disputes.” Id. at 676. We therefore
agree with the court that AdvanFort’s allegations are not sufficient to sustain a
determination that the Saudi judicial system is so corrupt or biased as to be an inadequate
forum for litigating AdvanFort’s complaint.
3.
“If the alternative forum is both available and adequate, the district court must weigh
the public and private interest factors.” See Tang, 656 F.3d at 249. That is, it must evaluate
“the balance of conveniences” to determine if a “trial in the chosen forum would be
unnecessarily burdensome for the defendant or the court.” See Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S.
at 256 n.23. Before engaging with its analysis of the public and private interest factors,
however, a court “must establish the appropriate level of deference owing to the
[plaintiff’s] choice of forum.” See DiFederico v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 714 F.3d 796, 802
(4th Cir. 2013). It is with this threshold inquiry that AdvanFort contends the district court
initially erred by failing to determine the proper level of deference given to AdvanFort’s
choice of forum, the Eastern District of Virginia. It argues that, as a Virginia corporation
bringing its claims in a Virginia court, it is entitled to increased deference.
AdvanFort is correct that ordinarily, “a citizen plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled
to even greater deference when the plaintiff chooses her ‘home forum.’” See DiFederico,
714 F.3d at 802-03 (quoting Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 255-56). But we have
recognized that in circumstances where “the plaintiff is a corporation doing business
21 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 22 of 29
abroad,” it “should expect to litigate in foreign courts.” Id. at 807. Indeed, where an
American corporation engaged in “extensive foreign business . . . brings an action for
injury occurring in a foreign country, many courts have partially discounted the plaintiff’s
United States citizenship.” Id. (first quoting Reid-Walen v. Hansen, 933 F.2d 1390, 1395
(8th Cir. 1991); and then citing Mizokami Bros. of Ariz., Inc. v. Baychem Corp., 556 F.2d
975, 978 (9th Cir. 1977)). In determining the deference applied to a plaintiff’s choice of
forum, we have recognized that a court should demonstrate through “affirmative evidence
that [it] did in fact consider this heightened standard when it conducted its analysis.” Id.
at 803.
And that is precisely what the district court did here: Rather than merely implying
that it gave less deference to AdvanFort’s choice of forum, the district court explicitly set
forth its reasoning to “partially discount” the deference afforded to AdvanFort. See
AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 678; cf. DiFederico, 714 F.3d at 803 (explaining that court’s
failure to provide “affirmative evidence” was abuse of discretion). The district court first
explained that, although AdvanFort sued in its home forum, it had “elected to do business
with Zamil in Saudi Arabia” and therefore “should expect to litigate in foreign courts.” See
AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 678. And so the court “partially discount[ed] AdvanFort’s
United States Citizenship.” Id. We cannot say, therefore, that the court erred in applying
our precedent in DiFederico, or by partially discounting the deference owed to
AdvanFort’s choice of forum.
After establishing the proper level of deference, the district court turned to
evaluating the private interest factors at stake in this dispute. As we have acknowledged,
22 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 23 of 29
“the forum non conveniens doctrine is ultimately concerned with convenience, not simply
the locus of alleged wrongful conduct.” See Tang, 656 F.3d at 252. To guide this inquiry,
the Supreme Court has explained that a court should consider private interest factors such
as the “relative ease of access to sources of proof,” the “availability of compulsory process”
and the “cost of obtaining the attendance” of witnesses, the possibility of viewing the
premises, plus “all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and
inexpensive.” See Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241 n.6; see also Gulf Oil Corp. v.
Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947). AdvanFort, however, contends that the court failed in
its consideration of those factors. We disagree.
We are satisfied that the district court properly exercised its discretion in weighing
the relevant factors, most notably by recognizing that “the relevant conduct occurred in
Saudi Arabia,” and thus “the parties will need to rely on physical and testimonial evidence
located in Saudi Arabia, including Jeddah Shipyard employees, AdvanFort’s marine
expert, and physical evidence such as the vessel which remains in Saudi Arabia.” See
AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 678. The court also observed that it lacks the authority to
compel the attendance of Saudi witnesses, which would “greatly undermin[e] a fact-finding
effort” in Virginia. See Tang, 656 F.3d at 252. Moreover, because AdvanFort’s claims
“involves events spread over ten years at a Saudi Arabian shipyard — including allegations
that Zamil allowed the vessel to be looted by third parties,” the court found it “reasonable
to expect that litigation of the case will involve third-party witnesses who are not under
either party’s control.” See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 678 (internal citations and
23 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 24 of 29
alterations omitted). We discern no error with the court’s findings. In sum, the court was
well within its discretion in concluding that the private interest factors favored dismissal.
The same is true of the district court’s assessment of the public interest factors in
this case. We have explained that “pertinent public interest factors are the local interest in
having localized controversies decided at home; the avoidance of complex comparative
law issues; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty.”
See Tang, 656 F.3d at 252 (citing Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 241 n.6). Because “this
is a case about a ship in Saudi Arabia that was allegedly damaged by a Saudi company, in
a shipyard in Saudi Arabia, pursuant to a contract to perform services in Saudi Arabia,” the
court correctly reasoned that the Saudi courts “seemingly would have a significant interest
in hearing a dispute about a contract performed in Saudi Arabia.” See AdvanFort, 704 F.
Supp. 3d at 679. And it is true that, as the court recognized, the Commonwealth of
Virginia’s interests in this case “are minimal.” Id.
We thus agree that, in the circumstances presented by this dispute — specifically,
“where the controversy’s contacts with the United States pale in comparison” to its foreign
contacts — “jury duty ought not to be imposed upon the people of the United States nor
should United States courts be clogged.” See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 679 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Virginia residents “should therefore not be saddled with
resolving” AdvanFort’s dispute. See Tang, 656 F.3d at 252.
Moreover, there is little doubt that the court would likely “encounter complex
issues” of Saudi Arabian law given the circumstances presented by AdvanFort’s claims.
See AdvanFort, 704 F. Supp. 3d at 679. Because “[t]he forum non conveniens doctrine
24 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 25 of 29
exists largely to avoid such comparative law problems,” we agree that dismissal is
appropriate for that reason as well. See Tang, 656 F.3d at 252; see also Piper Aircraft
Co., 454 U.S. at 251 (“The doctrine of forum non conveniens . . . is designed in part to help
courts avoid conducting complex exercises in comparative law.”). Put simply, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that the public interest factors favor Saudi
Arabia as the most appropriate forum.
C.
AdvanFort’s final contention challenges the district court’s denial of limited
discovery regarding what it characterizes as “critical factual disputes relevant to forum non
conveniens.” See Appellant’s Br. 62. More specifically, it sought discovery on the
adequacy or fairness of the Saudi courts, as well as the location and language of witnesses
and evidence.
Notably, the parties each presented detailed expert affidavits supporting their
positions regarding the availability and adequacy of the Saudi courts. Those affidavits
were a proper basis for resolution by the district court of Zamil’s motion to dismiss because,
as the Supreme Court has made clear, a forum non conveniens inquiry “does not necessarily
require extensive investigation, and may be resolved on affidavits presented by the parties.”
Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U.S. 517, 529 (1988).
Moreover, Zamil — which had the burden of showing that the Saudi courts were a
more convenient forum — presented evidence regarding its witnesses and otherwise
adequately demonstrated that the interests of convenience weighed in its favor. The district
court, therefore, had “enough information to enable [it] to balance the parties’ interests” on
25 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 26 of 29
those issues without ordering further discovery. See Piper Aircraft Co., 454 U.S. at 258.
In these circumstances, we are satisfied that there was no abuse of discretion in the court’s
decision to deny additional discovery, particularly where “[r]equiring extensive
investigation would defeat the purpose of [the] motion.” Id.
IV.
Pursuant to the foregoing, the district court’s dismissal of AdvanFort’s complaint
on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is affirmed.
AFFIRMED
26 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 27 of 29
THACKER, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
As an initial matter, I agree with the majority that the district court was not precluded
from granting a forum non conveniens dismissal by virtue of the Ports Authority’s default.
But, as to the forum non conveniens analysis, I depart from the majority on a single -- but
dispositive -- issue. Dismissal for forum non conveniens requires the existence of one
alternate, adequate, and available forum. Because Saudi Arabia would require the case be
split between two courts, I would vacate the forum non conveniens dismissal. Therefore,
I respectfully dissent.
As the majority explains, “[a]t the outset of any forum non conveniens inquiry, the
court must determine whether there exists an alternate forum.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
454 U.S. 235, 254 n.22 (1981) (emphases supplied). “[T]he alternate forum must be
available as to all defendants.” Galustian v. Peter, 591 F.3d 724, 731 (4th Cir. 2010)
(citation omitted) (emphases supplied). We have explained that a party seeking to
demonstrate the availability of an alternative forum must “indicate what court provides the
alternative forum” rather than “only suggest[ing] the country.” Kontoulas v. A.H. Robins
Co., Inc., 745 F.2d 312, 316 (4th Cir. 1984) (emphases in original).
Here, Zamil argues that Saudi Arabia is an adequate and available alternative forum
because “Saudi courts would have jurisdiction over both defendants.” Ante at 15 (citation
omitted). But, as we have indicated, simply naming the country is inadequate. As
AdvanFort’s Saudi legal expert explained, the Saudi Board of Grievances is the court with
“exclusive jurisdictions over administrative cases and lawsuits filed against government
27 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 28 of 29
bodies” like the Ports Authority. J.A. 242. The Board of Grievances does not have
authority over commercial entities like Zamil. AdvanFort’s Saudi legal expert explained:
Thus, if litigated in Saudi Arabia, AdvanFort’s claims against the Saudi Ports Authority would have to be litigated before the Board of Grievances. However, the Board of Grievances’ jurisdiction does not extend to commercial cases brought against non-government parties. Consequently, since AdvanFort’s claims concern conversion, breach of bailment, negligence, and gross negligence, those claims against Zamil would have to be litigated before a different court: the Commercial Court. There is no forum in Saudi Arabia where AdvanFort could bring its claims against both Defendants.
J.A. 242. *
Zamil’s legal expert did not meaningfully refute this claim. Instead, he offered only
that the Board of Grievances “allows a claimant that has submitted a lawsuit” before it “to
request that [it] involve another party in the case provided that the conditions required by
the relevant law are met.” J.A. 323. Thus, Zamil’s expert claimed that AdvanFort’s
evaluation was “not entirely accurate” because the Board of Grievances could decide to
allow the claims against Zamil to be heard there too. J.A. 324. Notably, however, Zamil’s
expert did not explain what the “conditions required by the relevant law” are, nor did he
provide an analysis or opinion as to whether those requirements could be satisfied here.
The majority posits that “[o]ur precedent . . . does not go so far as to demand that a
defendant must identify a single tribunal in a foreign jurisdiction where all claims brought
by a plaintiff may be heard and resolved.” Ante at 16. I disagree. We have explicitly
* Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint Appendix filed by the parties to this appeal.
28 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1007 Doc: 46 Filed: 04/22/2025 Pg: 29 of 29
recognized that it is insufficient for a party seeking forum non conveniens to identify only
the country, rather than the specific court that would serve as the forum. See Kontoulas,
745 F.2d at 316. And as one of our sister circuits has explained, forum non conveniens “is
not available as a tool to split or bifurcate cases” as that “fundamentally contradicts the
‘central purpose’ of forum non conveniens because it only increases the possibility of
overlapping, piecemeal litigation that is inherently inconvenient for both the parties and
the courts.” DIRTT Env’t Solutions, Inc. v. Falkbuilt Ltd., 65 F.4th 547, 555 (10th Cir.
2023) (citations omitted).
Here, requiring AdvanFort to litigate its claims against Zamil and the Ports
Authority in separate Saudi courts creates piecemeal litigation and increases the possibility
of overlapping and inconsistent judgments. And it forces AdvanFort to incur the costs and
inconvenience associated with litigating not one, but two, cases in separate tribunals.
Given all of this, I would conclude that forum non conveniens is unavailable in this
case because there is not a single alternative forum available to all defendants. I would
vacate the district court’s dismissal and allow AdvanFort to proceed on its claims in its
home forum, the Eastern District of Virginia.