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 Delaware, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the forum is inconvenient for the parties or witnesses, even if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is particularly relevant when the case lacks a significant connection to Delaware. While a Delaware resident plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, this does not prevent a defendant from arguing that the case should be dismissed in favor of a more appropriate jurisdiction. When considering a motion to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, Delaware courts will weigh both private interest factors, such as the convenience for parties and witnesses, and public interest factors, including the administrative difficulties for courts with congested dockets and the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. The court's decision to dismiss is discretionary and will be based on a balance of these factors, with the aim of ensuring that the litigation proceeds in the most suitable and just forum.