Civil Procedure: Forum Non Coveniens
Latin for, “inappropriate forum,” forum non conveniens (FNC) is a common law doctrine that gives courts the discretionary power to decline hearing a case if there is both an undue hardship on the defendant and a more convenient forum for the case to be heard in. Although similar to venue, forum non conveniens contemplates that the more appropriate forum will be in another jurisdiction (often another state) rather than in a different area of the same state.
Since the plaintiff initially selects which form a case is to be heard in, it is the right of the defendant to dismiss the case on the basis of FNC. In determining whether or not to grant a defendant’s motion for FNC, the court seeks to balance the convenience of the defendant against the plaintiff’s choice of forum. In order to win dismissal on the basis of FNC, the defendant must show a compelling reason why it is inconvenient to hear a case in the selected court. In this determination, the plaintiff is given the benefit of the doubt that they have chosen a particular forum for legitimate reasons. If a case is dismissed for FNC, the plaintiff retains the right to refile the case in a more appropriate court.
Generally, corporations may not request FNC if they are headquartered in the same jurisdiction the suit is brought in.
The most recent Supreme Court decision on FNC is Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981), which held the following:
“1. Plaintiffs may not defeat a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiffs than that of the chosen forum. The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry.
(a) …. [D]ismissal will ordinarily be appropriate where trial in the plaintiff’s chosen forum imposes a heavy burden on the defendant or the court, and where the plaintiff is unable to offer any specific reasons of convenience supporting his choice. If substantial weight were given to the possibility of an unfavorable change in law, however, dismissal might be barred even where trial in the chosen forum was plainly inconvenient, and the forum non conveniens doctrine would become virtually useless. Such an approach not only would be inconsistent with the purpose of the forum non conveniens doctrine, but also would pose substantial practical problems, requiring that trial courts determine complex problems in conflict of laws and comparative law, and increasing the flow into American courts of litigation by foreign plaintiffs against American manufacturers.
2. ….When the plaintiff has chosen the home forum, it is reasonable to assume that the choice is convenient; but when the plaintiff or real parties in interest are foreign, this assumption is much less reasonable and the plaintiff’s choice deserves less deference.
3. The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the trial court’s sound discretion and may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion…..
(a) In analyzing the private interest factors, the [court may accept FNC if]… a large proportion of the relevant evidence [is] located there. The [court may also consider]… problems posed by the petitioners’ inability to implead potential third-party defendants — the pilot’s estate, the plane’s owners, and the charter company — supported holding the trial in [a foreign court].
(b) …. [A]side from the question whether [foreign] law might be applicable in part, all other public interest factors favor trial in [the foreign forum], which has a very strong interest in this litigation. The accident occurred there, all of the decedents were [foreign], and apart from petitioners, all potential parties are [also foreign]. As to respondent’s argument that American citizens have an interest in ensuring that American manufacturers are deterred from producing defective products and that additional deterrence might be obtained by trial in the United States where they could be sued on the basis of both negligence and strict liability, any incremental deterrence from trial in an American court is likely to be insignificant and is not sufficient to justify the enormous commitment of judicial time and resources that would be required.”
Additionally, even if neither defendant files a motion to dismiss for improper venue, the court can dismiss the case against them for improper venue sua sponte.
Related posts:
- Civil Procedure: Venue Governed by §1391, venue concerns the appropriate district court in...
- Civil Procedure: Personal Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction refers to the courts power to enter judgement...
- Civil Procedure: Grable Substantial Federal Issue Test The Grable Test carves out a "special and small category"...
- Civil Procedure: Erie Doctrine Erie established that in federal diversity cases, matters characterized as...
- Civil Procedure: Subject Matter Jurisdiction Outline Analyzing Cases Dealing With Federal Jurisdiction How are the parties...