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 Illinois, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to dismiss a case if it determines that another jurisdiction is more convenient for the parties and witnesses and would better serve the interests of justice. This doctrine is applied even when the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the case has some connection to the forum state. However, if the case lacks significant ties to the forum, the court may find it more appropriate to be heard elsewhere. While the choice of forum by a plaintiff who is a resident of Illinois is given considerable weight, this preference can be challenged by the defendant. The defendant must show that the balance of private interest factors (such as the convenience of the parties and witnesses) and public interest factors (such as the administrative burdens on court dockets and the interest in having localized controversies decided locally) strongly favor a trial in a different forum. Ultimately, the decision to apply forum non conveniens is at the discretion of the trial court, which must weigh these factors carefully.