Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens in Maine

“Forum non conveniens is a doctrine whereby the Court may decline to exercise jurisdiction even where it properly has subject matter and personal jurisdiction if it is a seriously inconvenient forum, provided that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff." (See Diamond Bus. Credit Corp. v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., No. BCD-CIV-2021-21, at *4 (Me. Super. Apr. 29, 2021); Coming v. Coming (1989) 563 A.2d 379, 380.)

Factors Considered in Determining Whether to Invoke Forum Non Conveniens

“The factors to be considered in determining whether to invoke the doctrine include:

1. the private interests of the plaintiff;
2. the relative ease of access to sources of proof;
3. the availability of compulsory process and the cost for attendance of witnesses;
4. the necessity and possibility of a view of the premises;
5. whether the plaintiffs choice of forum was made solely to vex, harass, or oppress the defendant; and
6. whether, in light of the public interest in having a localized controversy decided where it originated, the state in which the suit was filed has some tangible or intangible relation to the litigation.”

(See Diamond Bus. Credit Corp. v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., No. BCD-CIV-2021-21, at *4 (Me. Super. Apr. 29, 2021); Coming v. Coming (1989) 563 A.2d 379, 380.)

“The Court will not grant a dismissal unless the ends of justice strongly militate in favor of relegating the plaintiff to an alternative forum." (See id; MacLeod v. MacLeod (1978) 383 A.2d 39, 42.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Forum Non Conveniens

“Dismissal for forum non conveniens, although discretionary, must be predicated upon the trial court's initial determination that dismissal will further the ends of justice and promote convenience of the suit for all parties.” (See Macleod v. Macleod (1978) 383 A.2d 39, 41-42; Brown v. Clorox Co., Inc. (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 306, 128 Cal.Rptr. 385; Houston v. Caldwell (1977) 347 So.2d 1041; Gulf Oil Co. v.Woodson (1972) 505 P.2d 484; Zurick v. Inman (1968) 221 Tenn. 393, 426 S.W.2d 767.)

“We review the trial court's decision to dismiss the suit on the ground of forum non conveniens for an abuse of discretion.” (See id; Margani v. Sanders (1982) 453 A.2d 501, 504-05; Corning v. Corning (1989) 563 A.2d 379, 380; Macleod v. Macleod (1978) 383 A.2d 39, 41-42.)

“A court abuses its discretion if it exceed[s] the bounds of the reasonable choices available to it." (See Capelety v. Estes (2023) Me. 50, 12; Sager v. Town of Bowdoinham (2004) ME 40, ¶ 11, 845 A.2d 567.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Forum Non Conveniens

It is well settled that “the existence of an alternative forum is essential to invoking the doctrine of forum non conveniens…Furthermore, the requirement that there be an alternative forum for the invocation of forum non conveniens does not only apply to strong claims, it applies to all claims.” (See Diamond Bus. Credit Corp. v. Twin Rivers Paper Co., No. BCD-CIV-2021-21, at *4-5 (Me. Super. Apr. 29, 2021); MacLeod v. MacLeod (1978) 383 A.2d 39, 42.)

As such, it is also well settled that “our courts should dismiss a case filed in Maine on the ground of forum non conveniens only if dismissal will further the ends of justice and promote convenience of the suit for all parties.” (See Corning v. Corning (1989) 563 A.2d 379, 380.)