9. In SINOCHEM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. v. MALAYSIA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP., 549 U.S. 422, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007), the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of an action against a Chinese company on the ground of forum non conveniens even though the District395Court had not first ascertained whether subjectmatter or personal jurisdiction was present. Justice Ginsburg explained that when a district court does not intend to resolve the merits of a case, it “has leeway ‘to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits,’ ” Id. at 431, 127 S.Ct. at 1191, 167 L.Ed.2d at 25 (quoting Ruhrgas, p. 352, supra), and “may dispose of an action by a forum non conveniensdismissal, bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.” Id. at 432, 127 S.Ct. at 11192, 167 L.Ed.2d at 26.

Prior to the Court’s decision in Sinochem, district courts sometimes would condition a dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds on defendant’s waiver of a jurisdictional or limitations defense in the alternative forum. See In re Union Carbide Corp. Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India in Dec., 1984, 809 F.2d 195 (2d Cir.1987), certiorari denied 484 U.S.

871, 108 S.Ct. 199, 98 L.Ed.2d 150 (1987). May a district court that has not yet determined its jurisdiction impose such conditions?