Forum non conveniens - sustany/dvg GitHub Wiki

Forum non conveniens refers to a court's discretionary power to decline to exercise its�jurisdiction�where another court, or forum, may more conveniently hear a case. Dismissing a case on forum non conveniens grounds is not a bar for res judicata purposes and, therefore, does not prevent a�plaintiff�from re-filing their case in the more appropriate forum. This doctrine may be invoked by either the�defendant, or sua sponte by the court.�

Even if a�plaintiff�brings a case in an inconvenient forum, a court will not grant a�forum non�conveniens�dismissal unless there is another forum that could hear the case and potentially recover damages. Additionally, courts will not grant a�forum non�conveniens�dismissal where the alternative forum's judicial system is grossly inadequate. For example, an American court would not grant a�forum non�conveniens�dismissal where the alternative forum was Cuba.

Courts typically use a 2-part test to determine whether they will grant a defendant�s forum non conveniens motion. The first part is a balancing test of both private and public factors, and the second part looks at what adequate alternative courts are available.

  • Balancing Test
    • Private Factors
      • Ease of access to evidence
      • Interest of the two parties in their connections with the respective forums
      • The plaintiff's chosen court would be burdensome to the defendant
      • If a court finds this factor to be true, then that is often sufficient to dismiss�the case and accept a�forum non conveniens�claim
      • Ease of obtaining witnesses
      • Enforceability of judgment
    • Public Factors
      • Whether the trial would involve multiple sets of laws, thus potentially confusing a jury
      • Having juries who may have a connection to the case
      • Local interest in having local interests heard at home
      • Having the trial in a place where state laws govern
  • Adequate Alternative Inquiry Test
    • The defendant must offer an alternate court that is able to hear the case
    • The alternate court must have the ability to provide a remedy to the plaintiff

A court will typically only invoke�forum non conveniens�sua sponte�if it meets a 2-step test:

  1. The court is a seriously inappropriate forum.
  2. There is a substantially more appropriate court that is available for the plaintiff's claim.

Sometimes, courts attach conditions to�forum non conveniens�dismissals. For example, the court might require the�defendant�to waive defenses that would prevent the�plaintiff�from re-filing the suit in the alternative forum. Alternatively, a court might dismiss the case in favor of a foreign court, but only on the condition that the�defendant�allow�discovery.

On appeal,�forum non conveniens�decisions are evaluated using an�abuse of discretion�standard.

The Supreme Court considered�forum non conveniens�in�Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981). In that case, the Court held that so long as there was a�remedy�available in the alternate forum, it did not matter if the�remedy�was clearly insufficient. However, lower courts do not strictly follow this rule. Instead, they usually consider the adequacy of the alternative forum's�remedy�as another factor to be balanced when deciding whether or not to grant a�forum non conveniens�dismissal.

The Supreme Court has heard two cases on the issue of�forum non conveniens�in recent years:

In Sinochem�International Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp, the Supreme Court held that that a federal court may hear and pass a ruling on a�forum non conveniens�motion even if that court does not necessarily have subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction over the case in front of the court. The Court decided that while courts typically need to consider�personal jurisdiction�and�subject-matter jurisdiction�before hearing a case�on the merits, this procedure does not necessarily apply when considering non merits�issues.�

The second case was�Atlantic Marine Construction Co. v. U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, which determined that courts should use�28 U.S.C. 1404(a), which allows for the transfer of cases between jurisdiction, for the purposes of granting a forum non conveniens motion.�