Nacionales, supra, 466 U.S. at 414, 104 S.Ct. at 1872. However,
in the latter case, more substantial contacts with the forum
are necessary to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
See Walpex Trading, supra, 712 F. Supp. at 390.
No serious claim can be made here that plaintiffs have failed
to allege contacts of the defendants with the United States
that would justify the exercise of personal jurisdiction over
them. These include the following: (1) Banco Central's promise
to pay plaintiffs in New York; (2) the Argentine government's
maintenance of consulates throughout the country; (3) Banco
Central's commercial activities in the United States; and (4)
both defendants' maintenance of bank accounts in the United
States. See Complaint at ¶¶ 8-9; Affidavit of Richard Cutler at
¶ 5 & Exs. E & F (sworn to May 29, 1990).*fn11
This is especially true since the maintenance of bank
accounts in the United States, protected by American laws
governing the banking and insurance industries, has been held
to indicate that a defendant has availed itself of American
laws. See Texas Trading, supra, 647 F.2d at 314; Hatzlachh
Supply Inc. v. Savannah Bank of Nigeria, 649 F. Supp. 688, 691
(S.D.N.Y. 1986). Furthermore, the circumstance that defendants
agreed to pay the Bonods in United States dollars in an
American Bank surely made an action for breach of that
obligation in the United States foreseeable. See Schmidt v.
Polish People's Republic, 579 F. Supp. 23, 28 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd,
742 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1984); see also Hatzlachh, supra, 649
F. Supp. at 691 ("where a defendant negotiates or obtains the
services of a plaintiff through the use of United States mail
and phone system and agrees to pay in the United States,
litigation in the United States has been held to be
foreseable.") (emphasis added). Moreover, defendants'
maintenance of a consulate and commercial offices in New York
indicates that the defendants transact business here with some
Forum Non Conveniens
Finally, defendants assert that the Court should dismiss the
action pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. That
doctrine, which allows a district court to dismiss an action
because other public and private interests outweigh the
ordinary deference given to a plaintiff's choice of forum, is
fully applicable to an action governed by the FSIA. See
Verlinden B. V. v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 U.S. 480, 490
n. 15, 103 S.Ct. 1962, 1970 n. 15, 76 L.Ed.2d 81 (1983);
Crimson Semiconductor, supra, 629 F. Supp. at 908. The private
interests central to a forum non conveniens determination are
the ease of access to proof and the availability of witnesses,
i.e., the ability to compel the presence of unwilling witnesses
or the costs of transporting willing witnesses to the United
States for trial. See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501,
508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). The public
interests include the administrative burden on the Court, the
burden that jury duty imposes upon the community when the
action has no relationship to the community and the concerns
raised by the possible need to apply foreign law. See id. at
508-09, 67 S.Ct. at 843; Borden, Inc. v. Meiji Milk
Prods. Co., 919 F.2d 822, 827-28 (2d Cir. 1990).
An essential determination for a forum non conveniens inquiry
is whether there is an adequate alternative forum to resolve
the dispute. See Borden, supra, 919 F.2d at 828-29; Hatzlachh,
supra, 649 F. Supp. at 692; Crimson Semiconductor, supra, 629
F. Supp. at 908. Defendants in this case have not even asserted
which particular forum they would relegate plaintiffs to,
although it would obviously be the courts of Argentina.
However, defendants have put forth no affidavits which would
permit the court to conclude that Argentina is an appropriate
forum. For example, there is no information in the present
record which would allow the court to assess whether plaintiffs
can even sue the Republic of Argentina in an Argentine court;
whether plaintiffs would be able to enforce a judgment and
receive American dollars in satisfaction of such a judgment;
whether the action would be barred by the statute of
limitations; or whether plaintiffs would have the ability to
compel the testimony of witnesses. Accordingly, the court
concludes that defendants have failed to show that Argentina
provides an adequate alternative forum for this action. See
Hatzlachh, supra, 649 F. Supp. at 692; Crimson Semiconductor,
supra, 629 F. Supp. at 908-09.
Moreover, even if Argentina was a suitable alternative forum,
the private interest factors listed in Gulf Oil, supra, do not
support the conclusion that Argentina is a more appropriate
forum for resolution of this dispute than this Court.
Defendants have not provided the Court with a list of witnesses
they would call at trial and their residence, which has been
held to be a prerequisite for forum non conveniens dismissal.
See Hatzlachh, supra, 649 F. Supp. at 692; Ocean Shelf Trading
Inc. v. Flota Mercante Grancolombiana S.A., 638 F. Supp. 249,
251 n. 4 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). In the absence of such information,
the Court cannot assess how defendants will be prejudiced by
litigation in New York. In any event, this action centers upon
defendants' obligations under the Bonods and therefore the
factual issues will be largely supported by documentary proof.
That circumstance also renders defendants' claim of prejudice
Finally, the Court notes that the public interest factors
also militate against dismissal under forum non conveniens. The
need to apply Argentine law, if the Court must do so, is not
itself a justification for dismissal under forum non
conveniens. See Manu Int'l, S.A. v. Avon Prods., Inc.,
641 F.2d 62, 67 (2d Cir. 1981). Moreover, since this is a non-jury trial
case, see 28 U.S.C. § 1330(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(d), a
local jury will not be burdened in resolving the dispute.
For the reasons set forth above, defendants Republic of
Argentina and Banco Central de la Republica Argentina's motions
to dismiss shall be and hereby are denied in all respects.
It is SO ORDERED.