posed by the inability to implead potential third-party defendants clearly supported" forum non conveniens dismissal. Reyno, 454 U.S. at 259. The Court so held even though it assumed that the Reyno defendant could have initiated a separate action for indemnity or contribution against other parties in a foreign court. Id. In light of the Court's statement, the fact that Boeing might be able to obtain indemnity or contribution against other parties in a separate English action does not diminish the significance of the fact that such an indemnity or contribution action could not be maintained in this country.
Finally, the plaintiff contends I erred in not treating her as a resident of Pennsylvania due to her claim of diversity. This argument is, I believe, based on her incorrect reading of the prior opinion and on erroneous interpretation of Article IV(1) of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and the Republic of Ireland, 1 U.S.T. 788, 790, T.I.A.S. No. 2155. Article IV(1) provides for "national treatment" of Irish citizens in the application of laws within the United States establishing a right of recovery for injury or death. National treatment means treatment no less favorable than that accorded to United States nationals in like situations. In applying the Treaty to the issue of the "right" to punitive damages (assuming that this is a "right of recovery" in the context of the Treaty, itself a doubtful proposition), one must first identify a situation involving a United States national which would be like the plaintiff's situation, and then determine what treatment would be accorded to that United States national.
In that regard, I first determined that the plaintiff's position was most like the position of a citizen of the United States, other than a Pennsylvania resident, who filed a diversity action in federal district court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Therefore, the plaintiff was considered a nonresident not because of a misreading of the jurisdictional basis of her suit, but because of the clear provisions of the Irish-American treaty. This interpretation of the Treaty is consistent with the express reference to a "like situation." The plaintiff offers no support for her argument that the Treaty somehow requires that she be treated as a citizen of the particular state in which her suit was filed. Her interpretation of the Treaty is in direct conflict with the like situation requirement; plaintiff's position is clearly most similar to that of a United States citizen filing an action in a state other than his or her state of residence. The Treaty requires equal treatment, not special treatment, of Irish nationals. The distinction between a Pennsylvania and non-Pennsylvania United States citizen is of little importance in this context in any event. The context in which this question arose was the consideration of the issue whether a possible loss of a right to punitive damages in a subsequent suit in the transferee forum renders that forum inadequate. For the purpose of deciding that issue, one must initially assume that the plaintiff, whether deemed a California or Pennsylvania resident, would be entitled to seek punitive damages in this forum. Having made that assumption, it would be inconsistent to decide that while the loss of the right to seek punitive damages does not bar dismissal as to a California plaintiff (as Reyno suggests), it does bar dismissal as to a Pennsylvania resident. The plaintiff cites no authority for drawing this rather arbitrary distinction.
Upon consideration of the defendant's motion to amend the order of May 18, 1987, and the plaintiff's motion to reargue the motion for dismissal and reconsider the order of dismissal, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum,
It is Ordered that the defendant's motion to amend the order of May 18, 1987, is Granted; the third condition contained in the first operative paragraph of the order of May 18, 1987, is amended to read as follows: (3) not contest liability for compensatory damages.
It is further Ordered that the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is Denied.
It is further Ordered that defendant shall have ten (10) days from the date of this order to file of record with this court its acceptance or rejection of the conditions contained in the order of May 18, 1987, as amended.