USCA11 Case: 20-13023 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-13023
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-04775-SDG
KABEYA BINTU,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DELTA AIR LINES, INC.,
KONINKLIJKE LUCHTVAART MAATSCHAPPIJ N.V.,
a.k.a. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,
Defendants - Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(July 19, 2021)
Before WILSON, GRANT, and LAGOA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-13023 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 2 of 5
Kabeya Bintu, a German resident proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of
his personal injury action under the Convention for the Unification of Certain
Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention) on forum non
conveniens grounds.
On October 23, 2019, Bintu filed an action in the Northern District of
Georgia against Delta Airlines, Inc. (Delta) and KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
(KLM), alleging a personal injury claim under the Montreal Convention. The
district court dismissed the action because it determined that Germany provided an
adequate alternative forum to bring the case, that private and public factors
weighed in favor of dismissing the case, and that Bintu could reinstate the suit in
Germany without undue inconvenience or prejudice to him.
We review forum non conveniens dismissals for abuse of discretion. Leon v.
Millon Air, Inc., 251 F.3d 1305, 1310 (11th Cir. 2001). We afford the district court
substantial deference in its forum non conveniens decisions. Id. The party moving
for dismissal must demonstrate that an adequate alternative forum is available,
public and private factors weigh in favor of dismissal, and the plaintiff can
reinstate his suit in the alternative forum without undue inconvenience or
prejudice. Id. at 1311. There is a strong presumption that the plaintiff’s choice of
forum is sufficiently convenient, however a weaker assumption applies in cases
brought by a foreign plaintiff. Id.
2
USCA11 Case: 20-13023 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 3 of 5
The district court did not err in dismissing Bintu’s case. It did not abuse its
discretion in finding that Germany was an adequate alternative forum. Both
Germany and the United States are signatories of the Montreal Convention, which
allows a plaintiff to bring a personal injury action (1) in the domicile or principal
place of business of one of the defendants, (2) where one of the parties has a place
of business through which the contract was made, (3) in the territory where the
accident happened, or (4) in the plaintiff’s permanent residence if the carrier
operates services to or from that location. Bintu resides in Germany and Delta and
KLM operate out of Germany. Because of this, Germany can have jurisdiction
over Bintu’s case. Additionally, both KLM and Delta expressly stated that they
will submit to German jurisdiction and are amenable to process in Germany. Other
courts have found Germany to be an adequate alternative forum as well, in spite of
the differences between common law and civil law jurisdictions. E.g., Chirag v.
MT Marida Marguerite Schiffahrts, 983 F. Supp. 2d 188, 197 (D. Conn. 2013);
Fagan v. Deutsche Bundesbank, 438 F. Supp. 2d 376, 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
The district court similarly did not abuse its discretion in determining that
both private and public factors weighed in favor of dismissal. As the plaintiff
bringing the case, Bintu’s choice of forum should be given weight, but that weight
is lessened because he is a foreign plaintiff. Leon, 251 F.3d at 1314–15. Thus, the
district court was correct in considering where the relevant witnesses and
3
USCA11 Case: 20-13023 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 4 of 5
documentary evidence are primarily located. In fact, it is not disputed that known
witnesses, including KLM’s flight crew, would have to engage in international
travel were this suit to proceed in Georgia. And many of these relevant witnesses
and documents are likely outside the Northern District of Georgia’s subpoena
power as they involve foreign citizens living abroad. The associated costs of these
factors to the private parties, in addition to the time needed to be able to find,
translate, and transmit much of the testimony and evidence, weigh in favor of
granting dismissal. Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., 578 F.3d 1283,
1292–93 (11th Cir. 2009).
For the public interest factors, Germany certainly has an interest in a case
where one of its residents is injured. Republic of Panama v. BCCI Holdings
(Luxembourg) S.A., 119 F.3d 935, 953 (11th Cir. 1997). Other public interest
factors also weigh in favor of dismissing this suit so that it may be brought in
Germany. As previously mentioned, were the suit to remain in the United States,
testimony would likely need to be translated in some fashion for a jury. SME
Racks, Inc. v. Sistemas Mecanicos Para Electronica, S.A., 382 F.3d 1097, 1101
(11th Cir. 2004). And Delta’s International Conditions of Carriage interaction with
the Montreal Convention will likely result in German law being applied to the
case. BCCI Holdings, 119 F.3d at 953. All these factors and costs would put a
4
USCA11 Case: 20-13023 Date Filed: 07/19/2021 Page: 5 of 5
larger administrative burden on the court here where it has a relatively modest
interest in the outcome of the suit. SME Racks, 382 F.3d at 1101.
Finally, there is no indication that Bintu cannot reinstate his suit without
undue prejudice or inconvenience. Leon, 251 F.3d at 1310. Bintu’s brief asserts
his claim is barred in Germany, but nothing in the record supports that assertion.
Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted Delta
and KLM’s forum non conveniens motion to dismiss and we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
5