Alayan v. Permanent Mission of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations

Background

The plaintiffs brought the case seeking severance pay that they alleged was owed after the non-renewal of their employment contracts with the Permanent Mission of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations in 2017. They alleged that they had been denied contractually required severance pay after thirty years of service.

The Motion to Dismiss

The Mission moved to dismiss the complaint on three grounds: a contractual forum-selection clause required the plaintiffs to bring the case in Saudi Arabia; the Mission was immune from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act; and the court lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs had not properly served the Mission under Section 1608(a) of that Act.

The court’s discussion addressed the forum-selection issue. It explained that a foreign forum-selection clause is enforced through forum non conveniens, a doctrine allowing dismissal when another forum is more appropriate. A clause is generally enforceable when it was communicated to the party resisting it, is mandatory, covers the claims and parties, and is not unreasonable or unjust.

Court’s Analysis

The plaintiffs did not dispute the first three parts of that analysis. The court therefore concluded that the clause was mandatory, valid, and enforceable. The plaintiffs argued that litigating in Saudi Arabia would be difficult, inconvenient, and potentially dangerous. They referred to allegations that a process server had been threatened with arrest while attempting personal service, as well as general concerns about human-rights abuses, instability, and the treatment of women’s-rights activists.

The court found those arguments insufficient. It stated that it could not assume that Saudi Arabian courts were unable to decide the claims and found no showing of hostility specifically directed at the plaintiffs or this litigation. The court also stated that, when a valid forum-selection clause exists, it generally may not consider private inconvenience factors because the parties agreed to the forum in advance. It found Saudi Arabia to be an adequate alternative forum.

Disposition

Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr. granted the Mission’s motion for forum non conveniens dismissal. In the conclusion, the court stated that the defendant’s motion to dismiss was granted and directed the Clerk of Court to close the case. The opinion does not state a separate ruling on the Mission’s foreign-sovereign-immunity or service arguments.

Names in the Opinion

The caption and the body of the opinion contain inconsistent spellings of the plaintiffs’ names. This summary uses the case name supplied with the opinion and refers to the parties as the plaintiffs and the Mission.