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 ReadingFourth Circuit Rejects Forum Non Conveniens Defense to Enforcing Arbitral Award
The New York Convention governs the recognition and enforcement of most foreign arbitral awards in the United States. Article V of the Convention sets forth limited grounds on which enforcement may be refused. But Article III makes the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards subject to “the rules of procedure of the territory where the award…
Continue ReadingNew Article on Old Admiralty Discretion
The Notre Dame Law Review has just published my new article, “Admiralty, Abstention and the Allure of Old Cases.” The heart of the article is a description of the federal courts’ long-standing discretion to decline jurisdiction over admiralty disputes between foreign parties. Defendants in transnational cases have recently tried to invoke this old admiralty practice…
Continue ReadingZooming Out of Forum Non Conveniens
A recently published note in the Columbia Law Review, written by Christabel Narh, draws a connection between the federal courts’ technological learning curve during the pandemic and the future of forum non conveniens. Zooming Our Way Out of the Forum Non Conveniens Doctrine argues that the federal courts’ trial-by-fire with videoconferencing and remote litigation during…
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)