Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens in Washington

Background

“The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute.” (Sww Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501, 507.)

“A plaintiff has the original choice to file his or her complaint in any court of competent jurisdiction.” (See Baker v. Hilton (1964) 64 Wn.2d 964, 965, 395 P.2d 486; Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (2008) 163 Wn. 2d 14, 19.)

“Courts generally do not interfere with the plaintiff's choice of forum where jurisdiction has been properly asserted.” (See Johnson v. Spider Staging Corp. (1976) 87 Wn.2d 577, 579, 555 P.2d 997 (1976); Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (2008) 163 Wn. 2d 14, 19.)

“The doctrine of forum non conveniens grants a court the discretionary power to decline a proper assertion of its jurisdiction when the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice would be better served if the action were brought and tried in another forum.” (See Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (2008) 163 Wn. 2d 14, 20.)

“Essentially, the doctrine limits the plaintiff's choice of forum to prevent him or her from inflicting upon [the defendant] expense or trouble not necessary to [the plaintiff's] own right to pursue his remedy.” (See id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“In deciding whether to decline its own jurisdiction in favor of another forum, a court must balance certain private and public factors that determine the convenience of litigation in the alternative forum as opposed to the host forum.” (See Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (2008) 163 Wn. 2d 14, 20.)

“The private factors specifically require courts to consider the convenience of litigation in the alternative forum, including:

1. the relative ease of access to sources of proof;
2. availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses;
3. possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and
4. all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive."

(See id.)

“The public factors also focus on litigation, including: “administrative difficulties . . . for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin [and j]ury duty . . . imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. . . . There is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case." (See id.)

“This balancing analysis presumes the existence of another forum against which to compare to the convenience of a Washington court. The analysis further presumes that the parties actually will litigate their claims in that forum.” (See id.)

“If the alternative forum cannot adjudicate the case, then the court cannot determine the convenience of litigation in such alternative forum.” (See id.)

“Furthermore, the balancing analysis compares Washington courts only to the alternative forum, as opposed to all other possible forums in which the plaintiff could have filed suit. Therefore, the trial court's determination to dismiss in favor of litigation in another forum necessarily requires the court to consider whether the case will proceed in the alternative forum.” (See id.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“If the court determines that the alternative jurisdiction offers a more convenient forum for the litigation of the case, then it may dismiss the action subject to a stipulation that the defendant submit to jurisdiction in a more convenient forum.” (See Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (2008) 163 Wn. 2d 14, 21.)

“The stipulation takes the form of a condition placed on the dismissal.” (See Int'l Sales Lease, Inc. v. Seven Bar Flying Serv., Inc. (1975) 12 Wn. App. 894, 899, 533 P.2d 445 [recognizing that forum non conveniens permit[s] a court which has assumed jurisdiction to attach conditions to the removal of the cause to a more convenient forum]; Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (2008) 163 Wn. 2d 14, 21.)

“The stipulation requirement gives meaning to the court's determination that a specific forum offers a better location for the litigation of the case.” (See id.)

“The standard of review applicable to a decision to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds is abuse of discretion. Such a dismissal may only be reversed if it is manifestly unfair, unreasonable or untenable." (See General Tel. Co. v. Utilities Transp. Comm'n (1985) 104 Wn.2d 460, 474, 706 P.2d 625; Myers v. Boeing Company (1990) 115 Wn. 2d 123, 128.)

“A decision based on an erroneous view of the law necessarily constitutes an abuse of discretion.” (See Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. Ass'n v. Fisons Corp. (1993) 122 Wn.2d 299, 339, 858 P.2d 1054; Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Co. (2008) 163 Wn. 2d 14, 19.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that under the doctrine of forum non conveniens “courts have discretionary power to [decline] jurisdiction where, in the court's view, the difficulties of litigation militate for the dismissal of the action subject to a stipulation that the defendant submit to jurisdiction in a more convenient forum.” (See Myers v. Boeing Company (1990) 115 Wn. 2d 123, 128.)

It is also well settled that “the efficacy of forum non conveniens depends on the court's power to subject dismissal on the fact that the parties will litigate in the alternative forum.” Sales v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 163 Wn. 2d 14, 21 (Wash. 2008)