Also known as:inconvenient forum · forum non conveniens
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A doctrine permitting a court to decline exercise of jurisdiction when the chosen forum is seriously inconvenient for trial of the action and a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff. The doctrine protects defendants from undue burden while ensuring the plaintiff retains access to an adequate alternative forum.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
5
Transfer After Initial Forum Choice
Plains Nature filed its nuisance suit in federal court in State D where venue was proper because the defendant was headquartered there. After learning that State C offered more favorable damages rules and a longer limitations period, Plains Nature moved for transfer under section 1404(a) to the district in State C where the evidence and witnesses were located. The transferee court in State C must apply the same choice-of-law rules that the State D court would have applied.
Transient Presence and Forum Suitability
A defendant served with process while briefly passing through State X faces suit there on a claim having no other connection to that state. The court recognizes that physical presence supplies jurisdiction but may still consider whether the forum is seriously inconvenient and whether another state offers a more appropriate venue for the parties and evidence.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Statutes
Uniform Acts
Restatements
Casebooks
Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin495 U.S. 604, 618, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631 (1990)
Minimum Contacts and Forum Selection
A plaintiff attempts to assert jurisdiction over nonresident defendants by sequestering their stock in a Delaware corporation. The court evaluates whether Delaware is a seriously inconvenient forum for litigating the underlying fiduciary claims and whether another state with stronger connections to the parties and events would provide a more suitable forum.
Shaffer v. Heitner433 U.S. 186 (1977)
Full Faith and Credit Limits
A sister-state judgment includes an injunction barring suit in the forum state on the ground that the forum is inconvenient. The receiving state determines that full faith and credit does not compel recognition of that injunction because each state retains authority to decide for itself which cases its courts will hear.
Yarborough v. Yarborough290 U.S. 202 (1938)
Residency and Divorce Jurisdiction
A plaintiff obtains a divorce decree in a state after satisfying a short residency requirement even though the marital domicile was elsewhere. The court in a second state later examines whether the original forum was seriously inconvenient for the defendant and whether the decree must be recognized under full faith and credit principles.
Williams v. North Carolina317 U.S. at page 297
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
What must a court find before declining jurisdiction under the inconvenient forum doctrine?+
The court must determine that the present forum is seriously inconvenient for trial and that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff. The doctrine balances the plaintiff's initial choice against the defendant's burden and the interests of justice.
Does a section 1404(a) transfer from an inconvenient but proper venue change the applicable state law?+
No. The transferee court must apply the same state law and choice-of-law rules that the transferor court would have applied. This rule prevents plaintiffs from using a convenience transfer to obtain more favorable substantive law.
How does the inconvenient forum doctrine interact with full faith and credit?+
Full faith and credit does not require a state to recognize a sister-state injunction that bars suit on the ground that the forum is inconvenient. Each state retains authority to decide which cases its own courts will hear.
433 U.S. 186 (1977)Conflict of Laws
…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).