Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens in New Mexico

Background

“The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court that has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter involved to decline to exercise jurisdiction when trial in another forum ‘will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.’” (Marchman v. NCNB Texas National Bank (1995) 120 N.M. 74, 85 quoting Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co. (1947) 330 U.S. 518, 527.)

“Application of forum non conveniens presupposes the availability of another forum in which all parties are amenable to process.” (Marchman v. NCNB Texas National Bank (1995) 120 N.M. 74, 85.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Forum non conveniens may only be applied in cases where ‘the court in which the action was brought has both subject matter and personal jurisdiction and is a proper venue.’” (Marchman, supra, 120 N.M. at 84-85 citing 15 Charles A. Wright et al., Federal Practiceand Procedure § 3828, at 287 [2d ed. 1986].)

Balancing Factors for Motion

“The determination of which forum will best serve the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice requires the court to consider and balance factors concerning the private interests of the litigants and factors concerning the public interests of the citizens and taxpayers of the forum.” (Id., citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. at 508-09.)

Private Interest Factors

“The private interest factors to be considered are:

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

(See, Buckner v. Buckner (1981) 95 N.M. 337, 339 quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. at 508.)

Public Interest Factors

“The trial court must also consider factors of public interest in applying the doctrine, including:

1. administrative difficulties for courts when litigation is filed in ‘congested centers instead of being handled at its origin’;
2. imposition of jury duty ‘upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation’;
3. the ‘local interest in having localized controversies decided at home’; and
4. avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflicts of laws or the application of foreign law.”

(Marchman v. NCNB Texas National Bank (1995) 120 N.M. 74, 85 quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. at 508-09.)

“In weighing the relevant factors of private and public interest, the court should give deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum.” (See Buckner, supra, 95 N.M. at 339 [“[U]nless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.”]; Marchman v. NCNB Texas National Bank (1995) 120 N.M. 74, 85 quoting quoting Gulf Oil, supra, 330 U.S. at 508.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The burden of persuasion is upon the defendant on all elements of the forum non conveniens analysis.” (Marchman v. NCNB Texas National Bank (1995) 120 N.M. 74, 85-86 citing Reid-Walen v. Hansen (1991) 933 F.2d 1390, 1393.)

“The defendant must establish ‘that:

1. there is an adequate alternative forum, and
2. that considerations of convenience and judicial efficiency strongly favor litigating the claim in the second forum.’”

(Marchman v. NCNB Texas National Bank (1995) 120 N.M. 74, 85-86 citing Mercier v. Sheraton International, Inc. (1991) 935 F.2d 419, 423-24.)

“In order to carry its burden, the defendant ‘must provide enough information to enable the District Court to balance the parties' interests.’” (Marchman v. NCNB Texas National Bank (1995) 120 N.M. 74, 85-86 [internal citation omitted].)

“If the district court finds that the defendant has carried its burden, the remedy for interstate forum non conveniens is dismissal.” (See James Hazard, supra, § 2.31, at 107 [“The courts of one state ... may not transfer cases to courts of another state, and dismissal is the only devise for implementing forum non conveniens on an interstate basis.”] (Marchman v. NCNB Texas National Bank (1995) 120 N.M. 74, 85-86 citing Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1988) 35 Ohio St.3d 123 [“Once a court has determined that the alternative forum is the more convenient, the common-law doctrine requires the court to dismiss the action.”].)

The Court’s Decision

“The trial court has broad discretion in deciding a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens.” (See Buckner, supra, 95 N.M. at 338-39, 622 P.2d at 243-44; Piper Aircraft v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. at 257 [“The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court.”])

“On appellate review, the trial court ‘may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion; where the court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference.’” (Marchman, supra, 120 N.M. at 86 citing Piper Aircraft, supra, 454 U.S. at 257.)