Forum non conveniens is a judge-made doctrine that permits a court to decline to hear a case on the understanding that it would be more appropriately resolved by a different sovereign’s courts. The doctrine is used by both state and federal courts in the United States to dismiss cases with transnational elements, particularly those brought by non-U.S. plaintiffs.
A Primer on Forum Non Conveniens
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a judge may dismiss a case on the understanding that the case would be better heard in another sovereign’s court. It is a judge-made discretionary doctrine that can be invoked even if the court otherwise has proper jurisdiction over the case. This primer describes the current federal doctrine…
Continue ReadingIs It Too Dangerous To Litigate In Israel?
Many international contracts contain forum selection clauses stating that litigation must occur in the courts of a particular country. While these clauses provide a welcome measure of certainty as to where future disputes will be resolved, they are sometimes viewed as inconvenient by plaintiffs who would prefer to sue in the United States. In an…
Continue ReadingDangerous Foreign Courts
U.S. courts have long recognized that certain civil cases should not be litigated in the United States. Even when a U.S. court has jurisdiction, a case may still be dismissed for forum non conveniens if the court concludes that the case would be more appropriately heard in the courts of another country. This inquiry typically…
Continue ReadingSDNY Stays Action Based on International Comity
Lower federal courts have developed several forms of abstention based on international comity. Some courts have adopted a doctrine of prescriptive comity abstention to dismiss federal statutory claims when facing a “true conflict” with foreign law. Some have embraced doctrines of adjudicative comity abstention that permit dismissals or stays of federal proceedings in favor of…
Continue ReadingWilliam S. Dodge, Maggie Gardner, & Christopher A. Whytock, The Many State Doctrines of Forum Non Conveniens, 72 Duke L.J. 1163 (2023) (SSRN)
Maggie Gardner, Retiring Forum Non Conveniens, 92 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 390 (2017) (SSRN)
Peter B. Rutledge, With Apologies to Paxton Blair, 45 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 1063 (2013) (Georgia)
Thomas O. Main, Toward a Law of “Lovely Parting Gifts”: Conditioning Forum Non Conveniens Dismissals, 18 Sw. J. Int’l L. 425 (2012) (UNLV)
Christopher A. Whytock, The Evolving Forum Shopping System, 96 Cornell L. Rev. 390 (2011) (SSRN)
Ronald A. Brand & Scott R. Jablonski, Forum Non Conveniens: History, Global Practice, and Future under the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements (2007)
Elizabeth T. Lear, National Interests, Foreign Injuries, and Federal Forum Non Conveniens, 41 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 559 (2007) (Florida)
Martin Davies, Time to Change the Forum Non Conveniens Analysis, 77 Tulane L. Rev. 309 (2002)
Allan R. Stein, Forum Non Conveniens and the Redundancy of Court Access Doctrine, 133 U. Pa. L. Rev. 781 (1985)