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 California, the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case when the chosen forum is inconvenient for the parties or witnesses and another more suitable forum exists. This doctrine is applied even if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The court will consider both private interest factors, such as the ease of access to evidence and the convenience of the parties, and public interest factors, such as the administrative burden on California courts and the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. While a California resident plaintiff's choice of forum is given deference, it is not absolute. The defendant can still move to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens by showing that the balance of private and public interest factors strongly favors a trial in a different jurisdiction. The ultimate decision rests with the court's discretion, taking into account all relevant factors to ensure that the trial is conducted in the most appropriate location.