Concept

Ruling Before Jurisdiction

Forum non conveniens

Ruling Before Jurisdiction

A federal court asked to dismiss for forum non conveniens may find its own jurisdiction in doubt, and it must then decide which question to answer first. Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp. lets the court answer the convenience question. A district court has discretion to respond at once to a defendant’s forum non conveniens plea and need not take up any other threshold objection first. In particular, it need not resolve whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction if it determines that, in any event, a foreign tribunal is the more suitable arbiter of the merits.¹ A court can therefore end a case without ever deciding whether it had the power to hear it.

That result looks backward at first, because the usual rule puts jurisdiction first. The Supreme Court has made clear its disapproval of “hypothetical jurisdiction,” the assumption of jurisdiction for the purpose of deciding the merits, in cases where a court would “resolve contested questions of law when its jurisdiction is in doubt.”² Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment itself involved a constitutional issue, and the Court was specific that in such a case jurisdiction must come first, because “[f]or a court to pronounce upon the meaning or the constitutionality of a state or federal law when it has no jurisdiction to do so is, by very definition, for a court to act ultra vires.”³

The question for forum non conveniens, then, is whether a dismissal on that ground is a decision “on the merits” of the kind Steel Co. forbids before jurisdiction is confirmed. Sinochem resolved a circuit split on that point, and the answer is no: forum non conveniens dismissals do not involve a decision on the merits.⁴ One court of appeals explained why. Forum non conveniens “does not raise a jurisdictional bar but instead involves a deliberate abstention from the exercise of jurisdiction,” and although the abstention may appear logically to rest on an assumption of jurisdiction, “it is as merits-free as a finding of no jurisdiction.”⁵ A dismissal that sends the merits to another tribunal decides nothing about who is right, so the ultra vires worry that drove Steel Co. never arises. Forum non conveniens belongs with the abstention doctrines, among them Younger v. Harris abstention, and not with rulings on the merits.

Sinochem grounded its holding in a federal court’s leeway “to choose among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits.” A district court therefore “may dispose of an action by a forum non conveniens dismissal, bypassing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.”⁶ Commentary has called Sinochem itself a “textbook case for immediate forum non conveniens dismissal.”⁷ The neighboring nonmerits grounds follow the same logic. A dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction is independent of the merits and does not require subject-matter jurisdiction, the principle associated with Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.⁸ A dismissal for lack of proper venue likewise involves no decision on the merits, so a court may grant it without first determining subject-matter jurisdiction.⁹

Transfer follows a similar pattern. A district court lacking personal jurisdiction has authority to transfer the case to a district court that has it, as Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman held.¹⁰ The transfer decision itself is governed by § 1404(a), under which Congress directed that multiple considerations govern transfer within the federal court system.¹¹

The bypass changes the order of decision and leaves the convenience test where it was. A defendant invoking forum non conveniens ordinarily bears a heavy burden in opposing the plaintiff’s chosen forum, although the presumption in the plaintiff’s favor “applies with less force” when the plaintiff has not chosen its home forum, because the assumption that the chosen forum is appropriate is then “less reasonable.”¹² The showing resembles the one made in Gulf Oil. Sued in New York, the defendant claimed that the appropriate place for trial was Virginia, where the plaintiff lived and the defendant did business, where all the events took place, where most of the witnesses lived, and where state and federal courts could reach the defendant.¹³ Gulf Oil also described the public side of the balance. Jury duty ought not be imposed on a community with no relation to the litigation, localized controversies carry a local interest in being decided at home, and a diversity case is better tried in a forum at home with the state law that must govern it.¹⁴

A thin convenience analysis does not become safe because jurisdiction went unresolved. The ISI International litigation has a large background: in earlier litigation, a counterclaim against a defaulting party led to a judgment of almost $290 million.¹⁵ The only consideration the district court articulated in favor of Ontario, that “the business transactions underlying the suit occurred” there, was neither particularly compelling on the equitable scale nor true, because the transactions were worldwide.¹⁶ ISI International also pointed out that Ontario’s compulsory process for discovery depends on leave of the judge, so it might be unable to depose witnesses living in the United States, a concern the district court had not considered.¹⁷

The bypass has a limit built into its own rationale. The Court tied it to cases in which “considerations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so warrant.”¹⁸ Those considerations cut the other way when jurisdiction is easy to decide. A court that sees a plain jurisdictional defect can end the case with a short ruling, while a forum non conveniens dismissal requires it to find an available and adequate forum and to weigh private and public factors against a plaintiff whose chosen forum receives a heavy presumption.¹⁹ The better course in that setting is to dismiss on the jurisdictional ground. The bypass earns its keep where jurisdiction is hard to determine and convenience weighs heavily toward a foreign tribunal.

Hypothetical Illustration

Marguerite Oyelaran, a New Jersey resident, sues Delmar Fabricators, a New Jersey company, in federal court on a state-law warranty claim and pleads no federal question. Delmar moves to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for forum non conveniens in favor of a court in Ontario. The complaint shows on its face that both parties are New Jersey citizens, so the defect needs no discovery to confirm. The court dismisses for want of subject-matter jurisdiction and weighs no convenience factor.

Now change the facts. Quinlan Marine sues Kestrel Shipping in federal court over a damaged cargo, and Kestrel denies that the court has personal jurisdiction over it. Settling that dispute would take months of jurisdictional discovery. A court in Ontario is already hearing the same dispute, Kestrel has shown that Ontario is an available and adequate forum, and the private and public factors weigh heavily toward it even after the court gives the plaintiff’s choice its due. The jurisdictional question is hard and convenience points firmly abroad, so the court may dismiss for forum non conveniens without deciding personal jurisdiction.

Exam Analysis Steps

A motion that joins a jurisdictional ground with forum non conveniens turns on two variables: how hard the jurisdictional question is, and how strongly convenience favors dismissal. A court should sort such a motion in this order:

Ask whether the court can readily see that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction. If it can, dismiss on that ground.
If jurisdiction is genuinely hard to determine, ask whether an available and adequate alternative forum exists and whether the private and public factors, weighed against the plaintiff’s choice, weigh heavily toward dismissal.²⁰
If they do, dismiss for forum non conveniens without deciding jurisdiction, because the dismissal is a nonmerits ruling that pronounces nothing on the merits.²¹
If they do not, resolve jurisdiction first, and reach the merits only after the court has confirmed its power to decide them.²²

One question remains open. The Court expressly reserved whether a court that conditions a forum non conveniens dismissal on waivers of jurisdictional or limitations defenses must first determine its own authority to adjudicate the case.²³ The reservation matters because, as the earlier discussion of conditional dismissals explained, conditions are how a court protects a plaintiff whose case a foreign tribunal may refuse, and it is unsettled whether a court may attach them while leaving its own jurisdiction undecided. A court that wants to impose conditions should therefore treat the bypass as unsettled.

Ruling Before Jurisdiction

Endnotes25