486 U.S. 517 (1988)
Petitioner Van Cauwenberghe, a real estate broker in Brussels, encouraged respondent Biard, also a Brussels resident, to meet with Alan Blair in Los Angeles to discuss a real estate investment.1 At petitioner's urging, Biard agreed to lend $1 million to the Three B Investment Associates partnership for three years at 20% interest, secured by a mortgage on the Concorde Bridge Townhouses complex.2 The partnership defaulted on the promissory note, and the mortgage proved worthless because the partnership had not acquired title to the complex.3
Respondent retained American counsel after claiming he had been misled into believing the partnership held title to the complex.4 In October 1984, petitioner, Blair, and another American were indicted in the Central District of California on charges of wire fraud and causing the interstate transportation of a victim of fraud.5 While on a trip to Geneva, petitioner was arrested pursuant to a request from the United States Department of Justice under the extradition treaty with Switzerland and was extradited to Los Angeles.6 Following a jury trial, petitioner was convicted on one count of wire fraud and one count of causing the interstate transportation of a victim of fraud.7
On January 22, 1986, petitioner was sentenced to a prison term of one year and one day, satisfied by pretrial confinement, and ordered to pay respondent restitution of $34,501.26.8
On November 12, 1985, respondent filed a civil suit against petitioner and others in the District Court for the Central District of California asserting a civil RICO claim, a common-law fraud claim, and other pendent state-law claims.9 On February 5, 1986, petitioner was served with the summons and complaint as he arrived at the office of his probation officer.10 Petitioner moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that he was immune from civil process because his presence resulted from extradition and that the complaint should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds.11
The District Court summarily denied both motions on November 17, 1986.12 The Court of Appeals dismissed petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction in a one-line order.13 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 1987.14
Whether an order denying a motion to dismiss based on an extradited person’s claim that he is immune from civil service of process is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291?15
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, courts of appeals have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts.16 A party generally may not take an appeal until there has been a decision that ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.17 In Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., the Court recognized a small class of decisions that are immediately appealable under § 1291 even though the decision has not terminated the proceedings in the district court.18 The Court refined the collateral order doctrine in Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, holding that to come within the doctrine the order must satisfy each of three conditions: it must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.19
No. Petitioner Van Cauwenberghe was served with the civil summons and complaint as he arrived at the office of his probation officer.20 Although the principle of specialty from United States v. Rauscher may shield an extradited person from civil service of process, the right not to stand trial is not an essential aspect of this protection.21 The principle of specialty fundamentally bears on treaty obligations between states and operates to ensure that the receiving state does not abuse the extradition processes of the extraditing state.22 The conduct of a civil trial does not significantly implicate the receiving state's obligation under the doctrine because the state's role is simply to provide a forum for the resolution of a private dispute.23
In addition, the defense of a civil suit does not significantly restrict a defendant's liberty because service of process merely requires that a defendant appear through an attorney and file an answer to the complaint to avoid default, with no possibility of pretrial detention or requirement to post bail.24 The defendant is not even compelled to be present at trial.25 Because the right not to be subject to a binding judgment may be effectively vindicated following final judgment, the denial of a claim of lack of jurisdiction is not an immediately appealable collateral order.26
The order denying the motion to dismiss on grounds of immunity from civil process is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.27
Whether an order denying a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens is immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291?28
To come within the collateral order doctrine of Cohen, the order must satisfy each of three conditions: it must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.29 The requirement that the order be completely separate from the merits is a distillation of the principle that there should not be piecemeal review of steps towards final judgment in which they will merge.30 Allowing appeals from interlocutory orders that involve considerations enmeshed in the merits of the dispute would waste judicial resources by requiring repetitive appellate review of substantive questions in the case.31
No. Respondent Biard filed the civil suit asserting a RICO claim, common-law fraud claim, and pendent state-law claims in the District Court for the Central District of California after the partnership defaulted on the promissory note secured by the mortgage on the Concorde Bridge complex.32 The District Court summarily denied the motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.33 In assessing a forum non conveniens motion, the district court generally becomes entangled in the merits of the underlying dispute because it must look into the relative ease of access to sources of proof, availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses, possibility of view of premises if view would be appropriate to the action, and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.34 Public interest factors relevant to a forum non conveniens determination also thrust the court into the merits of the underlying dispute.35 These include the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. They also include the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case.
To evaluate these factors, the court must consider the locus of the alleged culpable conduct, often a disputed issue, and the connection of that conduct to the plaintiff's chosen forum.36 In the main, the issues that arise in forum non conveniens determinations will substantially overlap factual and legal issues of the underlying dispute, making such determinations unsuited for immediate appeal as of right under § 1291.37
The order denying the motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.38