Courts apply the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens when necessary to prevent the imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant. A trial court may, in its discretion, dismiss a case even when contacts between the defendant and the forum state exist that may confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, if the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.

A resident plaintiff’s forum choice deserves deference, all else being more or less equal, but that choice does not foreclose a defendant from demonstrating that the private and public interest factors favor dismissal when another forum’s interests predominate.

In Alaska, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if holding the trial in Alaska would be highly inconvenient, despite the fact that the court may have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and practicality in litigation. While the preference of the plaintiff, especially if they are a resident of Alaska, is given considerable weight, this does not prevent the defendant from arguing that the case should be dismissed on the grounds of forum non conveniens. The defendant must demonstrate that the balance of private and public interest factors strongly favors another forum, and that the case lacks a significant connection to Alaska. Factors considered include the location of witnesses and evidence, the burden on the Alaska courts, and the interests of justice. The ultimate decision to dismiss a case under this doctrine is at the discretion of the trial court.