The facts of the matter are intriguing. Mr. Galustian was a citizen of Great Britain who resided in the United Arab Emirates. He was the owner of a commercial security and defense consultancy business by the name of ISI International. The sole defendant, Mr. Peter, was a United States citizen who resided in Virginia Beach, Virginia. He was the director of the Private Security Company Association of Iraq ("PSCAI"). Mr. Galustian filed a one-count Complaint alleging defamation against Mr. Peter in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Galustian's claim was based upon an email Mr. Peter sent to all members of the PSCAI on February 7, 2007 attaching an arrest warrant purportedly issued by an Iraqi judge for Mr. Galustian. Notably, the type of crime and article of law for which the warrant was issued was left blank. Substantively, Mr. Galustian contends that the warrant was issued fraudulently in order to disparage him and that Mr. Peter's distribution of the email and warrant caused him to lose business.

In response to the Complaint, Mr. Peter moved for dismissal based on forum non conveniens as well as failure to state a claim under both Virginia and Iraqi law. The Court did not reach the issue of failure to state a claim, but rather dismissed the case on the forum non conveniens argument. The District Court found that all factors heavily favored holding the case in Iraq.

The Plaintiff never actually opposed the Motion to Dismiss, but rather responded to the motion by filing his own Motion to Amend his Complaint. This amendment sought to add an additional Defendant, a Colonel Jack Holly, who was a member of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Colonel Holly was the man who allegedly provided a copy of the warrant to Mr. Peter. The District Court found that the Motion to Amend the Complaint was moot based upon its decision to grant the Motion to Dismiss for forum non conveniens. The Court held that Iraq was an adequate alternative forum for the action as long as Defendant Peter would waive all immunity he may have under the Iraq civil code, and submit to the jurisdiction of the Iraqi court.

The Fourth Circuit's response to the District Court decision was twofold. First, it held that the District Court improperly denied Plaintiff his right to amend the Complaint by considering it moot. The Court found that the Plaintiff has an absolute right to amend his Complaint before a responsive pleading has been filed in the action. The Court noted that a motion to dismiss is not characterized as a responsive pleading; and therefore, Plaintiff was entitled to amend his Complaint without leave of Court based upon FRCP 15. The Defendant argued that there was no absolute right to amend the Complaint under Rule 15, because the amendment sought to add parties to the litigation. However, the Fourth Circuit noted that its precedent had concluded that Rule 15(a) does apply to amendments seeking to add parties. For this reason alone, the District Court's decision was reversed and remanded.

The Fourth Circuit then stated that they would not express an opinion on the forum non conveniens issue, because consideration of it was premature until Mr. Holly was included as a defendant. However, the Fourth Circuit went on to note specific issues it seemed to have with the District Court's holding, and couched it as guidance to the District Court upon remand.

The Court noted that when moving to dismiss an action on forum non conveniens grounds, the defendant has the burden of proof to show the existence of an alternate, adequate, and available forum. In the Court's opinion the evidence submitted by Larry Peter was not sufficient to assure it that there is an action for defamation under Iraq law and that the additional party, Colonel Hanna, would not be immune to the suit in Iraq. Furthermore, the Court noted that the District Court failed to take into account to a sufficient extent, Mr. Peter's place of residence (Virginia Beach, Virginia) in a case that was brought in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Court concluded its opinion "while we do not suggest that Peter's place of residence is dispositive, the District Court should have examined this fact more closely on its forum non conveniens analysis when ‘the central focus of the forum non conveniens inquiry is convenience,'" citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981).