Also known as: more convenient forums · forum non conveniens
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A court that would better accommodate the parties, witnesses, and interests of justice when deciding a child-custody dispute.
Michael Miller and Maria Morales divorced in State B, where the court awarded primary custody to Michael. After Maria relocated with the child to State C, she petitioned State C to modify the order. The State B court determined that State C would be a more convenient forum because the child now attends school and receives medical care there. State C therefore exercised modification jurisdiction.
Midwest Airlines contracted with Mirage Hotels to service aircraft in international waters. The agreement contained a clause designating an English court. When a dispute arose, Midwest sued in a U.S. district court. The court enforced the clause after finding the English court a more convenient forum given the location of witnesses and records.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Malcolm McKinley sued Millennium Media in Delaware over corporate mismanagement by sequestering shares owned by the defendants. The defendants had no other contacts with Delaware. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction, concluding that the state of incorporation was not a more convenient forum than the defendants' home states.
Mustafa Mahmoud was served with process while briefly visiting California on business. He moved to dismiss, arguing the forum was inconvenient. The court retained jurisdiction because his physical presence supplied a traditional basis that outweighed any claim of greater convenience elsewhere.
Majestic Construction, a Michigan franchisee, contracted with Burger King in Florida. When a dispute arose, Majestic argued Michigan was more convenient. The court upheld Florida jurisdiction because the contract negotiations and ongoing relationship created sufficient contacts that made Florida a fair forum.
Marcus Mitchell, an injured seaman, sued American Dredging in Louisiana state court. The company sought dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, claiming Mississippi was more convenient. The court kept the case because the accident occurred nearby and key evidence remained in Louisiana.
A second state may modify only if it has initial jurisdiction and either the original state finds it no longer has exclusive continuing jurisdiction or that the second state is a more convenient forum, or no relevant parties still reside in the original state.
Supporting sources
No. The original court must itself determine that it no longer has exclusive continuing jurisdiction or that the new forum is more convenient before jurisdiction shifts.
Supporting sources
The court may grant or deny the motion in its discretion when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties, victims, and witnesses and the interest of justice.
Supporting sources
Courts enforce such clauses unless the selected forum would be so inconvenient that it effectively deprives a party of its day in court.
Supporting sources
No. The original state retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction until it or another court makes the required statutory finding that the new state is a more convenient forum or that no parties remain in the original state.
Supporting sources
…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).