Kamel v. Hill-Rom Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
108 F.3d 799 (1997)
- Written by Mary Phelan D'Isa, JD
Facts
Kamel (plaintiff), a citizen of Saudi Arabia and a sole proprietorship, entered into multiple agreements with Hill-Rom (defendant), an Indiana hospital-equipment manufacturer. The agreement provided that Hill-Rom would supply its products exclusively to Kamel, who would sell them in Saudi Arabia. At one point, Kamel hired Abou-Chedid (Chedid), Hill-Rom’s Middle East Area manager, to market and sell Hill-Rom’s products in Saudi Arabia. Later, Hill-Rom notified Kamel that Chedid had accepted work with a competing distributor, Saudi Trading Services (STS), and convinced Kamel to release Chedid from his employment obligations with Kamel by promising Kamel that Chedid would not sell Hill-Rom products for STS. Nevertheless, at some later point, Hill-Rom appointed STS as an additional distributor for its products in Saudi Arabia. Kamel then sued Hill-Rom and Chedid in a federal district court in Indiana for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. Hill-Rom moved to dismiss the action on forum non conveniens grounds, and the district court granted its motion. Kamel appealed and argued that the court incorrectly found that Saudi Arabia was an available alternative forum that would yield an adequate remedy.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bauer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
