Civil Procedure - Spring (Krasik)

Civil Procedure- - WEEK 1 VENUE FORUM NON-CONVENIENS NOTES FORUM NON-CONVENIENS The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court discretionarily

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
WEEK 1 – VENUE; FORUM NON-CONVENIENS NOTES FORUM NON-CONVENIENS – The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court discretionarily to decline existing authority to adjudicate if the court is a seriously inappropriate forum and if a substantially more appropriate is available to the plaintiff (i.e. a different state). The doctrine also exists for federal courts, usually where the more appropriate forum is a foreign state, and if the transfer of venue to a more convenient federal forum is not an adequate remedy. The doctrine entails three important precepts: 1. Forum non conveniens may be invoked on the defendant’s motion or on the court’s own motion (thus, burden of proof does not rest on plaintiff). 2. In passing the motion, the court gives the plaintiff’s choice of forum great deference, especially when the plaintiff is a local, but the interests of both the private parties and the public for and against litigating elsewhere also enter the balance (i.e. residence of parties, ease of access to evidence and witnesses, ease of judicial enforcement, consideration of what law will apply, interests of the state, etc.). Generally, a court will decline to hear the case only in extreme situations. 3. If the court grants the motion, the remedy is ultimately dismissal, either outright, or conditional upon the defendant’s waiving of specified defenses that would impede suit in the more appropriate forum. Gulf Oil v. Gilbert – Balancing Test : A Plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. However, when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear the case, and when trial in the chosen forum would establish a burden on the defendant out of all proportion to the plaintiff’s convenience, or when the chosen forum is inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal problems, the court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, dismiss the case. The strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum applies with (far) less force when the plaintiff or real parties in interest are foreign (Piper). Piper v. Reyno – A plaintiff may not defeat a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non-conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiffs than that of the present forum. However, if the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that is it no remedy at all, the unfavorable change in law may be given substantial weight; and the district court may conclude that dismissal would not be in the interests of justice. Balancing factors in a forum non conveniens test: 1. Is there an adequate alternative forum (how does change in law factor in?) 2. Should deference be given to plaintiff’s choice (residence of the plaintiff) 3. Consideration of public and private interests RULES
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
WEEK 2 – PLEADINGS GENERALLY; COMPLAINTS NOTES THE COMPLAINT
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/18/2008 for the course CIV PRO 001 taught by Professor Taylor during the Spring '08 term at Duquesne.

Page1 / 23

Civil Procedure- - WEEK 1 VENUE FORUM NON-CONVENIENS NOTES FORUM NON-CONVENIENS The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court discretionarily

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online