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 Colorado, 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 a Colorado 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 location of evidence and witnesses) and public interests (such as administrative and court burdens) strongly favor the case being heard in a different jurisdiction. If the court finds that there is a more appropriate forum elsewhere, and that the plaintiff's chosen forum has no significant connection to the case, it may dismiss the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens.