Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens in Maryland

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens

“At common law, trial courts of general jurisdiction, such as Maryland's circuit courts, had the inherent power to dismiss cases by applying the principles of forum non conveniens.” (See HBC U.S. Propco Holdings, LLC v. Fed. Realty Inv. Tr., No. 558-2022, at *14 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sep. 1, 2023).)

“Section 6-104(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article confirms the existence of an inherent power and makes clear that it may be applied in relation to the broad standard of the interest of substantial justice.” (See id.)

“Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, [a] state will not exercise jurisdiction if it is a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action[,] provided that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff.” (See id; Johnson v. G.D. Searle &Co. (1989) 314 Md. 521, 525 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws sub. sec. 84 (1971).)

As such, “a court with exclusive and continuing jurisdiction may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.” (See Stoneman v. Drollinger (2003) 314 Mont. 139, 64 P.3d 997, 1000; Miller v. Mathias (2012) 428 Md. 419, 452.)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens

“Forum non conveniens refers to the discretionary power of a court to transfer an action whenever it appears that the cause may be tried more appropriately in another valid venue.” (See Payton-Henderson v. Evans (2008) 180 Md. App. 267, 281.)

“Forum non conveniens is based on the assumption that both the original court and some other court fulfill all the applicable venue requirements.” (See id.)

“Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws sub. sec. 84 (1971) describes forum non conveniens as the principle whereby [a] state will not exercise jurisdiction if it is a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action[,] provided that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff." (See Johnson v. Searle (1989) 314 Md. 521, 525.)

Pursuant to Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure, “on motion of any party, the court may transfer any action to any other circuit court where the action might have been brought if the transfer is for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and serves the interests of justice.” (See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-327.)

“By its very terms, this Rule does not empower the circuit court to transfer a case to another state.” (See Rafferty v. Sweeney, No. 1989, at *22 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. June 20, 2017).)

“More broadly, however, the circuit court has inherent power to dismiss an action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.” (See id; Johnson v. G.D. Searle & Co. (1989) 314 Md. 521, 527.)

“CJP sub. sec. 6-104(a) provides that the circuit court may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions it considers just[,] if it finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in another forum[.]" (Rafferty v. Sweeney, No. 1989, at *22 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. June 20, 2017); Johnson v. G.D. Searle & Co. (1989) 314 Md. 521, 527.)

“In considering a motion based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, [t]he plaintiffs' choice of forum is not to be lightly disturbed." (See Jones v. Prince George's Cnty. (2003) 378 Md. 98, 120 (2003); Rafferty v. Sweeney, No. 1989, at *22 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. June 20, 2017).)

“A motion seeking to disturb the plaintiff's choice of forum should be granted only where the balance of interests weighs strongly in favor of the moving party.” (See Rafferty v. Sweeney, No. 1989, at *22-23 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. June 20, 2017); Leung v. Nunes (1999) 354 Md. 217, 224-25.)

Public and Private Factors Considered by the Court when Deciding Forum Non Conveniens

“In effect, forum non conveniens provides the defendant with the opportunity to prove that although a plaintiff’s choice of forum may be valid under a given venue statute, private and public interest factors weigh heavily in favor of transferring the action to another appropriate forum.” (See Payton-Henderson v. Evans (2008) 180 Md. App. 267, 281.)

“Accordingly, forum non conveniens allows the court, when certain conditions exist, to override the plaintiff's choice of forum.” (See id.)

“The United States Supreme Court held that United States District Courts had inherent power to dismiss pursuant to the doctrine in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947) and its companion case, Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 330 U.S. 518, 67 S.Ct. 828, 91 L.Ed. 1067 (1947).” (See Johnson v. Searle (1989) 314 Md. 521, 525-26.)

“Whether a federal court should resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute, was to be determined by weighing public and private interest factors.” (See id.)

"Wisely, courts have not attempted to catalogue the circumstances which will justify or require either grant or denial of remedy.” (See id.)

“The doctrine leaves much to the discretion of the court to which plaintiff resorts[.]" (See id.)

“Private interest factors mentioned by the Court included relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses[.]" (See id.)

“Describing public interest factors the Court said: administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. In cases which touch the affairs of many persons, there is reason for holding the trial in their view and reach rather than in remote parts of the country where they can learn of it by report only. There is a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself." (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens

“We have held that [w]hen determining whether a transfer of the action for the convenience of the parties and witnesses is in the interest of justice, a court is vested with wide discretion." (See Smith v. State Farm (2006) 169 Md. App. 286, 296.)

"The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court [and] may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion." (See id.)

“A circuit court must balance the private concerns, such as the convenience of parties and the witnesses, against the public-interest factors of systemic integrity and fairness that, in addition to private concerns, come under the heading of the interest of justice.” (See HBC U.S. Propco Holdings, LLC v. Fed. Realty Inv. Tr., No. 558-2022, at *21 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sep. 1, 2023); Johnson v. Searle (1989) 314 Md. 521; Jones v. Prince George's County (2003) 378 Md. 98.)

“The circuit court's decision depends on the strength of Maryland's interests in the action, which includes whether the defendant is a Maryland resident, where most of the witnesses are located, whether the claims arose in whole or in part in Maryland, and whether Maryland law governs some of the claims in the case.” (See id.)

“Once the trial judge enters into the balancing process, the discretion entrusted is extremely wide and the appellate deference owed is concomitantly wide.” (See HBC U.S. Propco Holdings, LLC v. Fed. Realty Inv. Tr., No. 558-2022, at *24 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sep. 1, 2023).)

“So long as the Circuit Court applies the proper legal standards and reaches a reasonable conclusion based on the facts before it, an appellate court should not reverse a decision vested in the trial court's discretion.” (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens

It is well settled that “a court may not unconditionally dismiss an action on grounds of forum non conveniens unless an alternative forum is available.” (See HBC U.S. Propco Holdings, LLC v. Fed. Realty Inv. Tr., No. 558-2022, at *20 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sep. 1, 2023); Johnson v. Searle (1989) 314 Md. 521; Jones v. Prince George's County (2003) 378 Md. 98.)

It is also well settled that “in a controversy concerning whether a court is an inconvenient forum, the plaintiff's choice of a forum is entitled to deference.” (See id.)