“The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to refuse to entertain an action even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of the law. It is applied when the ends of justice and the convenience of witnesses would be promoted by trial in another jurisdiction.” (See Cook v. Soo Line Railroad (2008) 347 Mont. 372, 380; Haug v. Burlington N. R.R. Co. (1989) 236 Mont. 368, 375, 770 P.2d 517, 521.)
“The common law doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute." (See Harrington v. Energy W., Inc. (2017) 387 Mont. 497, 505; San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court (2014) 329 P.3d 1264, 1271; Haug v. Burlington N. R.R. (1989) 236 Mont. 368, 374, 770 P.2d 517, 521.)
“Under this doctrine, a court may decline jurisdiction and dismiss a case when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.” (See id; Cook v. Soo Line R.R. Co. (2008) MT 421, ¶ 16, 347 Mont. 372, 198 P.3d 310.)
“[T]he two most important factors in a forum non conveniens analysis are:
(See Harrington v. Energy W. Inc. (2015) 380 Mont. 298, 306; Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 84 cmt. c.)
“Section 25-2-201(3), MCA, which governs motions to change venue within Montana on the ground of convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice, reflects the principles of forum non conveniens.” (See Harrington v. Energy W., Inc. (2017) 387 Mont. 497, 500-01; San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court (2014) 329 P.3d 1264, 1272.)
“The court or judge must, on motion, change the place of trial in the following cases…when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.” (See Mont. Code § 25-2-201(3).)
“We have held that § 25-2-201(3), MCA, grants the district court wide discretion, and we will not disturb the court's decision absent a clear abuse of that discretion." (See Harrington v. Energy W., Inc. (2017) 387 Mont. 497, 501; In re Marriage of Lockman (1994) 266 Mont. 194, 201-02, 879 P.2d 710, 715.)
“A district court exercises its discretion when transferring venue from one proper county to another proper county for the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice [under § 25-2-201(3), MCA], and we will not disturb such a decision absent an abuse of discretion." (See Harrington v. Energy W., Inc. (2017) 387 Mont. 497, 501; Wagman v. Motl (2015) MT 168, ¶ 6, 379 Mont. 439, 352 P.3d 609.)
"Because a forum non conveniens analysis turns on similar considerations, we review a district court's determination on a motion to dismiss under forum non conveniens for an abuse of discretion.” (See Harrington v. Energy W., Inc. (2017) 387 Mont. 497, 501.)
It is well settled that Montana courts have “recognized that § 25–2–201(2) and (3), MCA, is closely related to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, if not an outright codification.” (See San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. Ninth Judicial Dist. Court (2014) 329 P.3d 1264, 1272.)
It is also well settled that “a court that has jurisdiction to make a…determination may decline to exercise that jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and the court of another state provides a more appropriate forum.” (See M.M.K. v. Kerlee (2016) 369 P.3d 344, 346.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
