Also known as: inconvenient forum
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine under which a court declines to exercise jurisdiction over an action when the chosen forum is seriously inconvenient for trial and a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff.
Fatou Fall sued Ferrum Metals in federal court in State A where venue was proper. After discovery revealed most evidence and witnesses were in State B, she moved to transfer under section 1404(a). The State B court applied State A's choice-of-law rules to the claims even though Fall had initially selected the inconvenient forum.
Felix Franco filed a wrongful-death action in federal court in State C. The defendant moved to transfer to State D where the accident occurred and most parties resided. The court granted the transfer but required the transferee court to apply the same state law the original court would have used.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Floyd Franklin sued Gulf Oil in a distant district. The defendant showed that access to proof, witness convenience, and view of premises all favored trial elsewhere. The court dismissed the action because the chosen forum was seriously inconvenient and another appropriate forum existed.
Fabian Flynn sued a distant manufacturer after an accident far from its headquarters. The defendant showed that access to proof, witnesses, and the accident site all favored trial in another state. The court dismissed the action because the chosen forum was seriously inconvenient and another appropriate forum existed.
Fernando Farrell sued Allstate in Minnesota after a Wisconsin accident. The court transferred the case for convenience. The transferee court applied Minnesota choice-of-law rules because the original forum had been proper at filing.
Farah Fox sued Parklane Hosiery in a distant district after an earlier proceeding. The defendant showed that access to proof and witnesses all favored trial in another state. The court dismissed the action because the chosen forum was seriously inconvenient and another appropriate forum existed.
A court may decline jurisdiction when the chosen forum is seriously inconvenient for trial and a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff. The doctrine balances private interests such as access to proof and witness convenience against public interests in efficient judicial administration.
No. 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, even if the plaintiff later requests the transfer for convenience.
A home-state court may decline jurisdiction on inconvenient forum grounds. Another state may then exercise initial custody jurisdiction only if it has a significant connection with the child and substantial evidence is available there.
…v. Washington, supra . The concept of minimum contacts protects the defendant against the burdens of litigating in a distant or inconvenient forum. And it prevents the States from reaching out beyond the limits imposed on them by their status as coequal sovereigns in a federal system. The protection against inconvenient litigation is…