Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Monte Carlo Aviation Corporation v. Dassault Aviation S.A. and Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation

February 1, 2011

MONTE CARLO AVIATION CORPORATION
PLAINTIFF
v.
DASSAULT AVIATION S.A. AND DASSAULT FALCON JET CORPORATION DEFENDANTS



The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Leon Holmes United States District Judge

OPINION AND ORDER

On January 18, 2011, Monte Carlo Aviation Corporation filed a complaint asking the Court to enter an ex parte temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against defendants Dassault Aviation S.A. and Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation to prevent the removal of an aircraft, which is the subject of a contract dispute between the parties, from Little Rock, Arkansas. This Court issued a temporary restraining order and reserved ruling on the motion for preliminary injunction until an evidentiary hearing. On Wednesday, January 26, 2011, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on Monte Carlo's request for preliminary injunction and granted the parties time to respond to the pending motions and brief the issues raised in the hearing. The parties have submitted their briefs, and the case is ripe for adjudication. Monte Carlo has filed a notice voluntarily dismissing its claims against Dassault Falcon Jet Corporation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). For the following reasons, Monte Carlo's request for injunctive relief is denied, its complaint is dismissed, the temporary restraining order is dissolved, and all other pending motions are denied as moot.

I.

In its brief, Dassault Aviation argues that this Court is an inconvenient forum for adjudicating Monte Carlo's claims. Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, "when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear [a] case . . . [and] when the 'chosen forum [is] inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court's own administrative and legal problems,' the court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, dismiss the case." Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241, 102 S. Ct. 252, 258, 70 L. Ed. 2d 419 (1981) (quoting Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 524, 67 S. Ct. 828, 831-32, 91 L. Ed. 1067 (1947)). Forum non conveniens is a discretionary doctrine that vests in the district courts the power to abstain from exercising jurisdiction "even where authorized by statute if 'the litigation can more appropriately be conducted in a foreign tribunal.' " de Melo v. Lederle Labs., Div. of Am. Cyanamid Corp., 801 F.2d 1058, 1060 (8th Cir. 1986). A district court applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens must find that there exists an adequate alternative forum for the litigation; the court must then balance factors ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.