In Piper Aircraft v. Reno, what argument did the plaintiff fail to use to overturn the motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens?

In Piper Aircraft v. Reno, the plaintiff's failure to use the argument regarding the alternative forum's substantive law being less favorable is critical to understanding the court's decision regarding forum non conveniens. In the context of forum non conveniens, the court often considers whether an alternative forum exists that can adequately resolve the issues at hand.

The plaintiffs in this case were essentially arguing that the case should remain in the original forum because they felt it was more advantageous, primarily due to the perceived benefits of the law applied therein. However, the court emphasized that the mere fact that the alternative forum's law might not be as favorable to the plaintiff is not sufficient to deny the motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens. Instead, the court looks at the balance of other factors, such as the convenience for the parties and witnesses, and whether the alternative forum could adequately resolve the legal questions presented.

This highlights the principle that while the plaintiff's preferences and perceived advantages in their chosen forum are significant, they are not determinative if there is a suitable alternative forum available to hear the case. Consequently, the plaintiff's failure to focus on more compelling arguments—like convenience or access to evidence—contributed to their inability to overturn the motion to dismiss.