Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens in Connecticut

What Is a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens?

Background

“[T]he overriding inquiry in a forum non conveniens motion is not whether some other forum might be a good one, or even a better one than the [plaintiffs'] chosen forum. The question to be answered is whether [the plaintiffs'] chosen forum is itself inappropriate or unfair because of the various private and public interest considerations involved....” (Durkin v. Intevac, Inc. (2001) 258 Conn. 454, 465.)

“Accordingly, the trial court, in exercising its structured discretion, should place its thumb firmly on the [plaintiffs'] side of the scale, as a representation of the strong presumption in favor of the [plaintiffs'] chosen forum, before attempting to balance the private and public interest factors relevant to a forum non conveniens motion.” (Id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“A motion to dismiss ‘shall always be filed with a supporting memorandum of law and, where appropriate, with supporting affidavits as to facts not apparent in the record ... If an adverse party objects to this motion he or she shall ... file ... a memorandum of law and, where appropriate, supporting affidavits as to facts not apparent on the record.’” {Anderson v. Anderson, FA186077828S, at *1 [Conn. Super. Ct. Mar. 8, 2019] quoting Practice Book § 25-13.)

Deference to Plaintiff's Choice

“The [plaintiffs'] choice of forum, which may well have been chosen precisely because it provides the plaintiff[s] with certain procedural or substantive advantages, should be respected unless equity weighs strongly in favor of the defendant[s]....” (Durkin v. Intevac, Inc. (2001) 258 Conn. 454, 465.)

Convenience of Witnesses

“When a dismissal is premised on the convenience of witnesses, more than a mere allegation to that effect is required.” (Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc. (1990) 215 Conn. 490, 509-10 citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235, 259 and n. 27.)

“Rather, the defendant[s] must establish, with specificity, inconvenience to witnesses that is sufficiently prejudicial to justify dismissal.” (Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc. (1990) 215 Conn. 490, 509-10 citing Mowrey v. Johnson Johnson (1981) 524 F. Sup. 771, 775.)

“A party seeking to transfer a case ... for the convenience of witnesses must identify the key witnesses to be called and must make a general statement of what their testimony will cover.” (Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc. (1990) 215 Conn. 490, 509-10 citing Jenkins v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Co. (1952) 104 F. Sup. 422, 424.

“The burden is upon it to give the names and locations of potential witnesses and the substance of their testimony.” (Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc. (1990) 215 Conn. 490, 509-10 citing National Super Spuds v. New York Mercantile Exchange (1977) 425 F. Sup. 665, 668.)

“Sufficient information must be included in the affidavits to establish that the named witnesses are key witnesses who need to be called and that their testimony is material.” (Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc. (1990) 215 Conn. 490, 509-10 citing Alcoa Steamship Co. v. M/V Nordic Regent (1981) 654 F.2d 147, 167 [Van Graafeiland, J., dissenting], rev'd on rehearing, 169 [2d Cir].)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

A ruling on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. (Durkin v. Intevac, Inc. (2001) 258 Conn. 454, 463 citing Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc. (1990) 215 Conn. 490, 500; Union Carbide Corp. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co. (1989) 212 Conn. 311, 319; cf. Irish National Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Aer Lingus Teoranta (1984) 739 F.2d 90, 92 [2d Cir.])

“[T]he trial court's exercise of its discretion may be reversed only upon a showing of clear abuse. [W]here the court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference.” (Durkin v. Intevac, Inc. (2001) 258 Conn. 454, 463-65 quoting Union Carbide Corp. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co. (1989) 212 Conn. 311, 319.)

“Meaningful review, even from this circumscribed perspective, nonetheless encompasses a determination whether the trial court abused its discretion as to either the facts or the law....” (Id.)

The Court’s Decision

“The trial court does not have unchecked discretion to dismiss cases from a [plaintiffs'] chosen forum simply because another forum, in the court's view, may be superior to that chosen by the plaintiff[s]. . . . Although a trial court applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens must walk a delicate line to avoid implicitly sanctioning forum-shopping by either litigant at the expense of the other . . . it cannot exercise its discretion in order to level the playing field between the parties.” (Durkin v. Intevac, Inc. (2001) 258 Conn. 454, 463-65.)

“As a common law matter, the doctrine of forum non conveniens vests discretion in the trial court to decide where trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.... In [the] application of the abuse of discretion standard, [the reviewing court] must accept the proposition that simply to disagree with the [trial] court as if the facts had been presented to this court in the first instance cannot be the basis of our decision.” (Picketts v. International Playtex, Inc., supra, 500.)

Documents for Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens in Connecticut

Sort By

SIRENA, ALEXANDER v. WEINGARTEN, JEREMY Et Al document preview

REQUEST Plaintiff's Request to File Sur-Reply to Defendant's Reply (No. 11…

28 pages

DOCKET NO. FST-CV23-6062378-S : SUPERIOR COURT ALEXANDER SIRENA : J.D. OF STAMFORD/NORWALK V. : AT STAMFORD JEREMY WEINGARTEN and RANDI WEINGARTEN : JANUARY 16, 2024 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Purs…