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 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 ReadingAll I Want for Christmas (from the Federal Courts)
Rounding out this week’s posts by John Coyle and Bill Dodge, here’s my wish list for the lower federal courts (plus a bonus plea to the Supreme Court). Stop Violating Rule 4(f) and the Hague Service Convention Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes service of process on defendants “at a place…
Continue ReadingRevising Forum Non Conveniens Through § 1404?
I have written more than anyone probably should about forum non conveniens (FNC), but much of it boils down to some commonsense updating of the Gulf Oil factors: acknowledge the effects of changing technology, particularly on travel; require defendants to be specific about their evidentiary burdens; don’t overweight choice-of-law difficulties or docket congestion; don’t second…
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)