Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens in Ohio

What Is a Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens?

Background

“The common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and may be employed pursuant to the inherent powers of the court to achieve the ends of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses.” (Kramer v. Poppinghaus, No. 01-CA-149, at *1 [Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2002] quoting Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1988) 35 Ohio St.3d 123, 127.) “Additionally, where the trial court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, the decision of the trial court deserves substantial deference.” (Id.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“On a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens “the private-interest factors which the trial court must consider include:

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

(Kramer v. Poppinghaus, No. 01-CA-149, at *1 [Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2002] quoting Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1988) 35 Ohio St.3d 123, 127.)

Public Interest Factors

“The public interest factors which are to be considered by the trial court include:

the administrative difficulties and delay to other litigants caused by congested court calendars;
the imposition of jury duty upon the citizens of a community which has very little relation to the litigation;
a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home;
and the appropriateness of litigating a case in a forum familiar with the applicable law.“

(Id.)

“In addition, it must be noted that the plaintiff’s choice of forum should be given great deference, although a foreign plaintiff's choice of forum deserves less deference than a plaintiff that has chosen his or her home forum.” (Id.)

Evidence Required from Movant

“While a movant who has filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is not required to present documentary evidence in support of the motion, the movant does have the burden of producing evidence sufficient for the court to balance the interests of the parties.” (Salabaschew v. TRW, Inc. (1995) 100 Ohio App. 3d 503, 507 citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235, 258.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. It 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....” (Kramer v. Poppinghaus, No. 01-CA-149, at *1 [Ohio Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2002] quoting Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1988) 35 Ohio St.3d 123, 127 citingPiper Aircraft Co. id., citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501, 511-512; Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. (1947) 330 U.S. 518, 531; Corporate Partners v. National Westminster Bank (1998) 126 Ohio App.3d 516, 525.)

The Court’s Decision

“An order that denies a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens is not final and appealable under R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) for at least two reasons. Even if [the court] were to assume without deciding that a substantial right is at issue, any such right is not affected for purposes of R.C. 2505.02(B)(1) because there is an effective remedy by means of an appeal from final judgment.” (Stantec Consulting Servs., Inc. v. Velotta Co., 2015 Ohio 2310, 2-3 [Ohio Ct. App. 2015] citing State ex rel. Lyons v. Zaleski (1996) 75 Ohio St.3d 623, 624-625.)

“In addition, such an order does not ‘determine[] the action and prevent[] a judgment’ because the denial of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens does not ‘dispose of the merits of the cause or some separate and distinct branch thereof [leaving] nothing for the determination of the court.’” (Stantec Consulting Servs., Inc., supra, id., citing VILLaser Sys., L.L.C. v. Shiloh Industries., Inc., 119 Ohio St.3d 354, 2008-Ohio-3920, ¶ 8, citing Miller v. First Internatl. Fid. & Trust Bldg., Ltd., 113 Ohio St.3d 474, 2007-Ohio-2457, ¶ 6.)

Documents for Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens in Ohio

Sort By

12-DR-0222

4 pages

% y IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF WAYNE COUNTY, OHIO Hk TY a4 RAMONA L. GOOD - CASE NO. 12-DR-0222 Plaintiff JUDGE Wiest - MAGISTRATE Hines ve OLIN W. GOOD IIL MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION Defendant Now comes the Plaintiff, by and through counsel, who hereby enters her opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, filed July 5, 2012, and Defendant’s Motion for Continuance. filed July 6, 2012. The grounds for such opposition are enumerated in the attached memorandum in support. T…

Case Name 12-DR-0222 - GOOD, RAMONA L AKA RAMONA GOOD vs. GOOD, OLIN W III