Also known as: inconvenient forums · forum non conveniens
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine permitting a court that possesses jurisdiction to decline to exercise it when the forum is seriously inconvenient for trial and a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff.
Imperial Motors filed its contract suit against Ivy Investments in a New Jersey federal court where venue was proper but distant from most witnesses and documents. After realizing the inconvenience, Imperial moved under section 1404(a) to transfer to Delaware. The Delaware court applied New Jersey choice-of-law rules to the claims rather than its own.
Imani Idowu sued Parklane Hosiery in a distant federal court that later proved inconvenient. When the defendant later faced a second action, the court weighed whether the first forum's inconvenience undermined the fairness of applying collateral estoppel from the earlier judgment.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ivan Ivanov was served while briefly passing through California and argued that litigating there would be seriously inconvenient given his permanent residence elsewhere. The court considered whether the transient contact justified retaining jurisdiction despite the availability of a more appropriate forum.
Imran Iyer challenged a Delaware court's exercise of jurisdiction over corporate directors by arguing that the sequestration procedure created an inconvenient forum unrelated to the underlying fiduciary claims. The court examined whether another state offered a more appropriate venue for the dispute.
Interlink Communications sued American Dredging in a Louisiana state court for a maritime injury that occurred offshore. The defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the chosen forum was seriously inconvenient and that a federal court would provide a more appropriate venue.
Israel Irving filed an insurance coverage action in Minnesota despite stronger connections to Wisconsin. After the court indicated it might find the forum inconvenient, the parties discussed transfer and the effect on which state's law would govern the policy interpretation.
The court must determine both that the present forum is seriously inconvenient for trial and that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff.
No. The transferee court must still apply the same state law and choice-of-law rules that the transferor court would have applied.
Yes. Under the UCCJEA, a court may decline jurisdiction on its own motion if it finds the forum inconvenient and another state more appropriate.
Full faith and credit does not require a state to recognize a sister-state injunction that bars suit on the ground that the recognizing state's courts are an inconvenient forum.
…entitled to accept jurisdiction nonetheless remains free to arrange for the transfer of the litigation under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. See, e. g. , Broderick v. Rosner , 294 U. S. 629, 643 (1935); Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert , 330 U. S. 501, 504 (1947).