Negligence: Saudi Arabia is more convenient forum for slip-and-fall suit

Where the accident occurred in Saudi Arabia, most of the liability evidence is in Saudi Arabia, discovery would need to occur in Saudi Arabia, the inability to compel defendant witnesses to appear in this district and the availability of remedies in Saudi Arabia, this district was deemed an inconvenient forum.

Background

Terence Michael Dorn sued Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources LLC, alleging that its negligence caused him to fall and hit his head while he was a guest at the Crowne Plaza Riyadh Digital City in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens.

Available forum

Defendant has stated that it will make itself available in Saudi Arabia. In his opposition, plaintiff failed to address this factor, thus conceding that Saudi Arabia is an available forum. Moreover, a district judge in this district has previously determined that Saudia Arabia is an available forum, and this was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit.

Adequacy

The parties differ as to the adequacy of Saudi Arabia as a forum in which to litigate this matter. Based on the affidavits provided here, defendant has met its burden of demonstrating that Saudi Arabia is an adequate forum.

It is clear from the two affidavits of Amr Kady, who was nominated to be a judge in Saudi Arabi and who is a practicing attorney in Saudi Arabia, that plaintiff would have a claim in Saudi Arabia, that there are clear procedures and regulations that would apply to the proceedings and that plaintiff would not be left wholly without a remedy or recovery in Saudi Arabia, assuming that he could prove the facts alleged.

Although the affidavit of David J. Western, a former Staff Judge Advocate who served in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from May 2007 to July 2008, makes some assertions that contradict the averments made in Mr. Kady’s affidavits, the court finds Mr. Kady’s affidavit more persuasive where he is a current practitioner of law in Saudi Arabia, where his affidavit was more specific and where his affidavit attached the relevant provisions of law upon which he relied.

The result reached here is confirmed by a review of a recent decision from the Fourth Circuit which, just over three months ago, affirmed a decision by a judge in this district finding that Saudi Arabia is an adequate forum. And, as further confirmation, another circuit analyzing this same question also determined that Saudi Arabia was an adequate forum.

Plaintiff protests that Saudi caps on recovery based on race and religion “would not only be untenable in the courts of the United States but would be considered unconstitutional-if not outrageous.” Mr. Kady persuasively asserted that it is only with respect to so-called “blood money” damages that Saudi Arabia applies damages caps based on gender and religion.

But other damages are determined without reference to either gender or religion. Moreover, plaintiff is a member of the favored gender and, although plaintiff submitted an affidavit here, neither his affidavit nor his complaint assert that he is not Muslim. In any event, the Fourth Circuit has instructed that “a difference in the law in the two forums – even where the amount of potential recovery is drastically different – is not sufficient to bar the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine.”

Public and private interests

Plaintiff’s choice of forum is “presumptively convenient” and should be “overridden only when the defendant establishes such oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant as to be out of all proportion to plaintiff’s convenience, which may be shown to be slight or nonexistent.” Here, defendant has met that burden.

The private factors support the conclusion that Saudi Arabia is the more appropriate forum. The critical evidence related to liability is located in Saudi Arabia and, regardless of choice of forum, significant discovery would have to take place in Saudi Arabia related to liability. Moreover, defendant has asserted that it would be unable to compel the attendance of important witnesses in the United States, while plaintiff has asserted that it would merely be inconvenient for him to have to procure his witnesses in Saudi Arabia (without providing any metric by which to measure such inconvenience).

Given that most of the evidence as to liability resides in Saudi Arabia, the interests of Saudi Arabia in the dispute, the discovery that would need to take place in Saudi Arabia, the application of Saudi Arabian law and the inability to compel defendant witnesses to appear in this district, the court finds that defendant has established that the prejudice to it outweighs the inconvenience to plaintiff, which plaintiff has largely failed to establish.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss granted.

Dorn v. Intercontinental Hotels Group Resources LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-228, July 30, 2025. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 025-3-316. 18 pp.