Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens in Michigan

Background

“Forum non conveniens is a common-law doctrine defined as ‘the discretionary power of court to decline jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of justice would be better served if action were brought and tried in another forum.’” (Hernandez v. Ford Motor (2008) 760 N.W.2d 751, 754.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“In Cray the Michigan Supreme Court listed the following factors to be considered and weighed in deciding a motion for dismissal based on forum non conveniens:

1. The private interest of the litigant.
1. Availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses;
2. Ease of access to sources of proof;
3. Distance from the situs of the accident or incident which gave rise to the litigation;
4. Enforcibility [sic] of any judgment obtained;
5. Possible harassment of either party;
6. Other practical problems which contribute to the ease, expense and expedition of the trial;
7. Possibility of viewing the premises.
2. Matters of public interest.
1. Administrative difficulties which may arise in an area which may not be present in the area of origin;
2. Consideration of the state law which must govern the case;
3. People who are concerned by the proceeding.
3. Reasonable promptness in raising the plea of forum non conveniens.”

(Dayton Mall Inn v. Honeywell (1984) 132 Mich. App. 174, 178-79 quoting Cray v. General Motors Corp (1973) 389 Mich. 382, 395.)

“If there is not a more appropriate forum elsewhere, the inquiry ends and the court may not resist imposition of jurisdiction. If there is a more appropriate forum, the court still may not decline jurisdiction unless its own forum is seriously inconvenient.” (Miller v. Allied Signal, Inc. (1999) 235 Mich. App. 710, 713-14 citing Manfredi v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (1992) 194 Mich. App. 519, 527 quoting Robey v. Ford Motor Co. (1986) 155 Mich. App. 643, 645.)

“If a defendant agrees to waive any applicable statute of limitations defenses, thereby making an alternative forum available, dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens is appropriate.” (Miller, supra, id., citing Anderson v. Great Lakes Dredge Dock Co. (1981) 411 Mich. 619, 632.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

A court of appeals will “review the trial court's decision to grant a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens for an abuse of discretion.”s (Miller v. Allied Signal, Inc. (1999) 235 Mich. App. 710, 713 citing Hacienda Mexican Restaurants of Kalamazoo Corp. v. Hacienda Franchise Group, Inc. (1992) 195 Mich. App. 35, 38.) “An abuse of discretion is found only in extreme cases where the result is so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences a perversity of will, a defiance of judgment, or the exercise of passion or bias.” (Miller, id., citing Dacon v. Transue (1992) 441 Mich. 315, 329.)

The Court’s Decision

“The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to ‘resist imposition upon its jurisdiction although such jurisdiction could properly be invoked.’” (Miller v. Allied Signal, Inc. (1999) 235 Mich. App. 710, 713-14 citing Cray v. General Motors Corp. (1973) 389 Mich. 382, 395.) The doctrine presupposes that there are at least two possible choices of forum. (Miller v. Allied Signal, Inc. (1999) 235 Mich. App. 710, 713-14 citing id.)

"When a party requests that a court decline jurisdiction based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, there are two inquiries for the court to make: whether the forum is inconvenient and whether there is a more appropriate forum available.” (Id.)