Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens in Iowa

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens

“The doctrine of forum non conveniens is an instrument of justice.” (See State v. Iowa Southern Utilities Co. (1942) 231 Iowa 784, 820.)

“Under forum non conveniens, a court can decline to proceed with an action, although venue and jurisdiction are proper." (See Kraabel v. Kraabel (In re Marriage of Kraabel) (2018) 922 N.W.2d 106, n.4; Silversmith v. Kenosha Auto Transp. (1981) 301 N.W.2d 725, 726.)

“However, forum non conveniens does not create jurisdiction in the most convenient forum when no jurisdiction exists.” (See id.)

"The principle of forum non conveniens establishes the right of a court to resist imposition upon its jurisdiction although such jurisdiction could properly be invoked. It presupposes that there are at least two possible choices of forum." (See Douglas Mach. Eng. v. Hyflow Blanking Press (1975) 229 N.W.2d 784, 791; Cray v. General Motors Corp. (1973) 389 Mich. 382, 395; Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501, 506-507.)

Rules for Filing a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens

“[D]efendants may challenge venue on forum non conveniens grounds when the relative inconveniences [are] so unbalanced that jurisdiction should be declined on an equitable basis.” (See Silversmith v. Kenosha Auto Transp. (1981) 301 N.W.2d 725, 727; Root v. Toney (2013) 841 N.W.2d 83, 92-93.)

Rule 1.421 of the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure governs claim defenses.

“Every defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the pleading responsive thereto, or in an amendment to the answer made within 20 days after service of the answer, or if no responsive pleading is required, then at trial.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.421(1).)

“Improper venue under rule 1.808 must be raised by pre-answer motion filed prior to or in a single motion under rule 1.421(3).” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.421(2).)

“If the grounds therefor exist at the time a pre-answer motion is made, motions under rule 1.421(1)(b) through 1.421(1)(f) shall be contained in a single motion and only one such motion assailing the same pleading shall be permitted, unless the pleading is amended thereafter.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.421(3).)

“If a pre-answer motion does not contain any matter specified in rule 1.421(1) or 1.421(2) that matter shall be deemed waived, except lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter or failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.421(4).)

“Sufficiency of any defense may be raised by a motion to strike it, filed before pleading to it.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.421(5).)

“Motions under this rule must specify how the pleading they attack is claimed to be insufficient.” (See Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.421(6).)

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

“Application of the forum non conveniens doctrine lies in the sound discretion of the trial court.” (See In re Marriage of Voyles-Riahi, No. 19-1135, at *10 (Iowa Ct. App. Apr. 14, 2021); Silversmith v. Kenosha Auto Transport (1981) 301 N.W.2d 725, 728; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843, 91 L.Ed. 1055, 1062.)

“Considerable deference is given to the trial court's ruling.” (See In re Marriage of Pitcairn, No. 20-1713, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. June 30, 2021); Silversmith v. Kenosha Auto Transp. (1981) 301 N.W.2d 725, 728; In re Marriage of Kimura (1991) 471 N.W.2d 869; 879.)

“We will not disturb a trial court's decision unless we find an abuse of discretion. Such review is not de novo; the findings of fact of the district court are binding on us if supported by substantial evidence. Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind could accept it as adequate to reach the same finding.” (See id.)

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

It is well settled that “neither the mere desire of a party for some other forum nor a showing that the claim arose elsewhere is sufficient reason to sustain a dismissal on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Rather, the moving party must show the relative inconveniences were so unbalanced, that jurisdiction should be declined on an equitable basis.” (See Silversmith v. Kenosha Auto Transport (1981) 301 N.W.2d 725, 727; Douglas Mach. Eng. v. Hyflow Blanking Press (1975) 229 N.W.2d 784, 791; 1 Barron Holtzoff, Federal Practice Procedure, § 86.3, at 418-19 (1960).)

It is also well settled that “the doctrine of forum non conveniens can be invoked when the facts of the particular case show it would be inequitable to take jurisdiction of a cause of action even though the court might have the power to do so, it is rarely applied.” (See Douglas Mach. Eng. v. Hyflow Blanking Press (1975) 229 N.W.2d 784, 791.)