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 Alabama, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the chosen forum is inconvenient for the parties involved, even if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and judicial efficiency by considering various private and public interest factors. While a resident plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, it is not absolute. The defendant has the opportunity to show that the balance of private interests (such as the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the location of evidence) and public interests (including the administrative difficulties for courts with congested dockets, the imposition of jury duty on residents of a community with no connection to the litigation, and the local interest in having localized disputes decided at home) weigh in favor of dismissal in favor of a more appropriate forum. The key consideration is whether the case has a significant connection to the forum state. If it does not, and another forum has a stronger interest in the dispute, the court may dismiss the case in favor of that other forum.