Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens in Idaho

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

“Even if jurisdiction exists and may be exercised constitutionally, a court might entertain a motion to decline jurisdiction in favor of another, more convenient forum.” (See Nelson v. World Wide Lease, Inc. (1986) 110 Idaho 369, 374 n.1.)

“Forum non conveniens is a discretionary doctrine which vests in the courts the power to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction even where authorized by statute if the litigation can more appropriately be conducted in a foreign tribunal.” (See Allen v. Campbell (2021) 499 P.3d 1103, 1108.)

“The changing of the place of trial will be granted when the convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice would be promoted by the change.” (See Stephan v. Hoffman (1963) 86 Idaho 304, 305.)

“Factors to determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction comports with fair play and substantial justice include the burden on the defendant, the forum state's interest in adjudicating the dispute, the plaintiff's interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief, the interstate judicial system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of controversies, and the shared interest of the several states in furthering fundamental substantive social policies.” (See Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 477, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 2184, 85 L.Ed.2d 528; Saint Alphonsus v. State of Wash (1993) 123 Idaho 739, 745 n.2.)

Forum Selection Clauses

“Given the significance attached to forum selection clauses, the courts have placed a substantial burden on a plaintiff seeking to defeat such a clause, requiring it to demonstrate enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable under the circumstances of the case.” (See Off-Spec Sols. v. Transp. Inv'rs, LLC (2021) 168 Idaho 734, 737.)

“That is, that the forum selected would be unavailable or unable to accomplish substantial justice.” (See id.)

“Moreover, in determining reasonability, the choice of forum requirement must have some rational basis in light of the facts underlying the transaction.” (See id.)

“However, neither inconvenience nor additional expense in litigating in the selected forum is part of the test of unreasonability.” (See id.)

“Finally, a forum selection clause will not be enforced if to do so will bring about a result contrary to the public policy of the forum.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion Transfer Venue

“Forum non conveniens is a doctrine involving venue, not jurisdiction.” (See Allen v. Campbell (2021) 499 P.3d 1103, 1107-08.)

“The application for change of venue is made upon the ground of convenience of witnesses and the ends of justice.” (See Sweeney v. American Natl. Bank (1943) 64 Idaho 695, 700.)

“Granting or refusing to grant a motion for change of venue lies in the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest abuse of that discretion.” (See Jarvis v. Hamilton (1952) 73 Idaho 131, 135, 246 P.2d 216, 218; Stephan v. Hoffman (1963) 86 Idaho 304, 386 P.2d 56; Pintlar Corp. v. Bunker Ltd. Partnership (1990) 117 Idaho 152, 156.)

“To determine whether a trial court abused its discretion, this Court examines:

1. [W]hether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion;
2. whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and
3. whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason.”

(See Kirk v. Ford Motor Co. (2005) 141 Idaho 697, 701, 116 P.3d 27, 31; John Doe v. Tribes (2016) 367 P.3d 136, 140-41.)

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

It is well settled that “to avoid such potential prejudice to applicants, in our view a transfer of the case to the correct venue is preferable to dismissal of an action filed in the wrong court.” (See Abbott v. State (1996) 129 Idaho 381, 386.)

It is also well settled that “section 15-7-203 is a statutory embodiment of the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens. It states: the court will not, over the objection of a party, entertain proceedings under section 15-7-201 of this Part involving a trust registered or having its principal place of administration in another state, unless (1) when all appropriate parties could not be bound by litigation in the courts of the state where the trust is registered or has its principal place of administration or (2) when the interests of justice otherwise would seriously be impaired. The court may condition a stay or dismissal of a proceeding under this section on the consent of any party to jurisdiction of the state in which the trust is registered or has its principal place of business, or the court may grant a continuance or enter any other appropriate order." (See Idaho Code § 15-7-203; Allen v. Campbell (2021) 499 P.3d 1103, 1107.)