Also known as: forum shop · forum shops · forum shopped · venue shopping
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The practice of selecting the jurisdiction or court most favorable to one's claim or defense. Plaintiffs may pursue this strategy by filing in a forum with plaintiff-friendly substantive rules, procedural advantages, or higher damage awards.
Fumiko Fujimoto, a State A resident, sued Fernando Farrell, a State B resident, in federal court in State C over a contract dispute. She selected that district because its choice-of-law rules pointed to more generous contract remedies than State A or B courts would apply. The federal court applied the Hanna analysis and retained the case under the federal rule on point rather than a conflicting state procedure.
Foster Forge, a shipping company, filed a maritime injury suit in Louisiana state court against its employee. The company had expected the case to proceed in a more convenient federal forum but faced the state court's refusal to apply forum non conveniens. The choice produced an outcome unavailable in other maritime venues.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Fairfield Bank faced a consumer class action filed by Floyd Franklin in federal court rather than state court. Franklin chose the federal forum because its Rule 23 standards permitted certification that state law would have blocked. The court applied the federal rule despite the state policy against broad class actions.
Forrest Falconer sued Fusion Power in federal court in New York after a state-court verdict. He hoped federal appellate review would apply a less stringent standard than New York's material-deviation rule. The choice created a potential outcome difference between state and federal forums.
Felipe Figueroa, injured in State X, filed suit in State Y against Fidelity Trust. He selected State Y because its contacts analysis would apply its more plaintiff-friendly tort rules. The filing raised questions about whether the chosen forum had sufficient connection to the claim.
Felix Franco sued Stewart Organization's successor in a district designated by a forum-selection clause in their contract. The clause directed litigation to a venue whose procedural rules favored the defendant. The court enforced the clause and transferred the case, preventing the plaintiff from obtaining a different substantive outcome.
Federal courts apply state substantive law in diversity cases to prevent plaintiffs from choosing federal court simply because its rules would produce a more favorable outcome than state court. This practice deters forum shopping between state and federal systems sitting in the same state.
When venue is proper in the original district, the transferee court must apply the same state law and choice-of-law rules that the transferor court would have applied. This rule prevents a party from using transfer to obtain a different substantive outcome.
When no federal rule directly addresses an issue, state law applies if disregarding it would encourage plaintiffs to choose federal court over state court. The test focuses on whether the difference between the rules is outcome-determinative in a way that promotes forum shopping.
No. Plaintiffs may lawfully select among multiple proper forums. Improper forum shopping arises only when the choice exploits differences in substantive law or procedural rules that the Erie doctrine or choice-of-law rules seek to neutralize.
…law." Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra , at 74-75.[^maj-7] The decision was also in part a reaction to the practice of "forum-shopping" which had grown up in response to the rule of Swift v. Tyson . 304 U. S., at 73-74.[^maj-8] That the York test was an attempt to effectuate these policies is demonstrated by the fact…