Forum Non Conveniens

Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine that permits a court to dismiss a case, even though it has proper jurisdiction and venue, when the court determines that the case would be more appropriately tried in another forum. The doctrine rests on the principle that a plaintiff's choice of forum, while entitled to deference, is not absolute and may yield when the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses strongly favor litigation elsewhere.

The modern framework for forum non conveniens was established by the Supreme Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) and refined in Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981). The analysis proceeds in two steps. First, the court must determine whether an adequate alternative forum exists. A forum is adequate if the defendant is amenable to service of process there and the forum permits litigation of the subject matter of the dispute. The alternative forum need not provide identical substantive law or remedies. Second, the court balances private interest factors (ease of access to evidence, availability of compulsory process for witnesses, cost of attendance for willing witnesses, and other practical problems) against public interest factors (administrative difficulties from court congestion, the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, avoiding the application of foreign law, and the burden of jury duty on citizens of a community with no relation to the litigation).

A plaintiff's choice of forum is ordinarily entitled to substantial deference, particularly when the plaintiff is a domestic resident. However, as Piper Aircraft clarified, less deference is given when the plaintiff is a foreign citizen. Forum non conveniens results in dismissal (not transfer), distinguishing it from transfer of venue under 28 U.S.C. section 1404, which moves the case to another federal court.