Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens in Wisconsin

Background

“Forum non conveniens has long been advocated by jurisprudential scholars to avoid forum shopping and to encourage the disposition of cases with economy, expedition, and convenience at the place where justice can reasonably be done.” (See Littmann v. Littmann (1973) 57 Wis. 2d 238, 246.)

“It is appropriate and in accordance with modern concepts of jurisprudence that a suit can be commenced anywhere in the state where jurisdiction can be acquired, and the proper venue should be determined by the trial court in accordance with the principles of forum non conveniens and the need to do justice between the parties.” (See Mueller v. Brunn (1982) 105 Wis. 2d 171, 190.)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon the motion of a party, the court's own motion, or the request of another court.” (See Cynthia H. v. Joshua (2009) 778 N.W.2d 171.)

“Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors.” (See id.)

“A court may decline to exercise jurisdiction if the court finds that it is an inconvenient forum and the court of another state is a more appropriate forum.” (See Potts v. Stroot (2005) 704 N.W.2d 423.)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Before determining whether to decline or retain jurisdiction the court may communicate with a court of another state and exchange information pertinent to the assumption of jurisdiction by either court with a view to assuring that jurisdiction will be exercised by the more appropriate court and that a forum will be available to the parties.” (See Colby v. Colby (1981) 102 Wis. 2d 198, 201 n.2.)

“A decision that trial should be in a foreign forum is within the discretion of the court in which the action is pending.” (See Fisher v. Sulieman (2015) 866 N.W.2d 404.)

“In exercising that discretion, the court may consider such factors as amenability to personal jurisdiction in the state and in any alternative forum of the parties; convenience to the parties and witnesses of trial in this state and in any alternative forum; differences in conflict of law rules in this state and any alternative forum; or any other factors having substantial bearing upon the selection of a convenient, reasonable and fair place of trial.” (See id.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that “Sec. 262.19, Stats., based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, provides defendants with a device by which they can protect against the exercise of personal jurisdiction when there is serious question whether due process will be denied by subjecting a defendant to the jurisdiction of this state.” (See Dillon v. Dillon (1970) 46 Wis. 2d 659, 671-72.)

It is also well settled that “in all cases in which the doctrine of forum non conveniens comes into play, it presupposes at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to process; the doctrine furnishes criteria for choice between them.” (See Lau v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. (1961) 14 Wis. 2d 329, 340.)