Al sues Bob after a car accident which injures both parties. The accident took place in New Jersey, and the bulk of the evidence, including police reports, wreckage and witnesses, is located there. Both of the cars involved in the accident were registered an insured in New Jersey. In addition, Al is a citizen of New Jersey. However, Bob is a citizen of California. Al sues Bob in California. Even though the the California court has jurisdiction, it can dismiss the suit based on forum non conveniens, because having the trial in California will be nearly impossible, and a suit in New Jersey would be both convenient and jurisdictionally proper (as the location where the accident took place).
Forum non conveniens
Definition
A court's discretionary power to decline to exercise its jurisdiction where another court may more conveniently hear a case.
Overview
Forum non conveniens is a discretionary power that allows courts to dismiss a case where another court, or forum, is much better suited to hear the case. This dismissal does not prevent a plaintiff from refiling his or her case in the more appropriate forum. See Res Judicata. This doctrine may be invoked by either the defendant, or by the court. See sua sponte.
When determining whether or not to exercise forum non conveniens, courts consider several factors, including:
- The residence of the parties
- The location of evidence and witnesses
- Public policy
- The relative burdens on the court systems
- The plaintiff's choice of forum
- How changing the forum would affect each party's case
Even if a plaintiff brings a case in an inconvenient forum, a court will not grant a forum non conveniens dismissal if there is no other forum that could hear the case, or if the other forum would not award the plaintiff any money even if he or she won. Similarly, 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.
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. Or the court might dismiss the case in favor of a foreign court, but only on the condition that the defendant allow American-style discovery.
On appeal, forum non conveniens decisions are evaluated using an abuse of discretion standard.
The Supreme Court most recently 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.
See Venue; Civil Procedure.
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
Latin for an inconvenient court. The idea that a court may change the venue of a lawsuit if that is more convenient for the parties. However, because strict written rules of jurisdiction and venue are used to decide where a case can and cannot be properly filed, this term has largely lost any real meaning. Also called forum inconveniens.
Definition provided by Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary.
August 19, 2010, 5:16 pm
