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 Iowa, the courts recognize the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a trial court 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 applied to ensure fairness and practicality in litigation. While the choice of forum by a resident plaintiff is given considerable weight, it is not absolute. The defendant has the opportunity to show that both private interests (such as the convenience of parties and witnesses, and the location of evidence) and public interests (such as administrative and legal system efficiency, and the interest of having localized controversies decided locally) favor the case being heard in a different jurisdiction. If the defendant successfully demonstrates that another forum is significantly more appropriate, the court may dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, even if the case has some connection to the state of Iowa.