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 Massachusetts, 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 applied to ensure fairness and judicial efficiency by considering various private and public interest factors. While a Massachusetts resident plaintiff's choice of forum is given deference, it is not absolute. A defendant can still argue that the case should be dismissed if another forum is significantly more appropriate due to factors such as the location of evidence, the convenience of parties and witnesses, and the interest of justice. The court will weigh these factors and may dismiss the case if it finds that the balance of interests strongly favors another jurisdiction. It is important to note that the application of this doctrine is discretionary and will depend on the specific circumstances of each case.