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 Arizona, the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the chosen forum is highly 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 the choice of forum by a resident plaintiff is given considerable weight, it is not absolute. A defendant can challenge the plaintiff's choice by showing that the balance of private interests (such as the location of evidence or witnesses) and public interests (such as administrative and legal concerns of the forum) strongly favors another jurisdiction. Ultimately, the decision to dismiss a case based on forum non conveniens lies within the discretion of the trial court, which must carefully balance these interests to determine whether the case should be heard in a different forum that is significantly more connected to the dispute.