“A Vermont court which has jurisdiction may decline to exercise it if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.” (See In re A.W. (2014) 94 A.3d 1161, 1169.)
“Specifically, the dismissal should be granted only in the rare case in which the combination of factors to be considered tips the scales overwhelmingly in favor of the defendant." (See Burrington v. Ashland Oil Co., Inc. (1976) 134 Vt. 211, 215-16.)
“The mere showing of inconvenience on the part of the defendant is not enough. It must also be established that the dismissal will cause no serious inconvenience to the plaintiff.” (See id.)
"It is the defendant's burden to convince the court that the forum is both inconvenient to it and not convenient to the plaintiff." (See id.)
“A point to be emphasized is that the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens is by far the exception, not the rule.” (See id.)
“It must be kept in mind that its cardinal purpose is to prevent the plaintiff from seeking to vex, harass, or oppress the defendant by inflicting upon him expenses not necessary to his own right to pursue his remedy.” (See id.)
“Its purpose is not to confer upon the defendant the absolute power to dictate and delimit the geographical areas in which he may be sued. The nature of the doctrine accounts for the infrequency of its application.” (See id.)
“In short, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be upset.” (See id.)
“Thus, it is clear that the doctrine is intended to prevent the plaintiff's abuse of those general rights given him by necessarily broad venue statutes. It is not intended to hinder him in a good faith choice of forum.” (See id.)
“The decision whether to decline jurisdiction is discretionary and thus subject to review under an abuse-of-discretion standard.” (See Rocissono v. Spykes (2000) 170 Vt. 309, 317.)
“Absent an abuse of discretion we will not disturb the trial court's ruling.” (See Leiter v. Pfundston (1988) 150 Vt. 593, 597.)
“Abuse of discretion requires a showing that the trial court has withheld its discretion entirely or that it was exercised for clearly untenable reasons or to a clearly untenable extent.” (See Vermont National Bank v. Clark (1991) 156 Vt. 143, 145.)
It is well settled that “should a case of undue hardship be presented, the doctrine of forum non conveniens is an adequate instrumentality through which justice can be achieved.” (See Smyth v. Twin State Improve. Corp. (1951) 116 Vt. 569, 574.)
It is also well settled that “when trial court has considered all relevant factors in its forum non conveniens analysis, the court's ruling deserves substantial deference.” (See In re Waterfront Park Act 250 Amendment (2016) Vt. 39, 9 n.7.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
