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 Louisiana, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of justice, to have the case tried in a different jurisdiction. Even if a court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant, it may still dismiss a case on the grounds of forum non conveniens if the case lacks a significant connection to Louisiana. While the choice of forum by a resident plaintiff is given deference, it is not absolute. A defendant can argue that the balance of private and public interest factors, such as the location of witnesses, the burden on the court, and the interest of having localized controversies decided locally, weigh in favor of the case being heard in another forum. Ultimately, the decision to apply forum non conveniens is at the discretion of the trial court, which must weigh these factors to determine whether justice would be better served by transferring the case to a more appropriate forum.