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 Minnesota, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if holding the trial in Minnesota would be highly inconvenient, despite the court having personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and practicality in litigation. While a Minnesota resident plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, this preference can be overridden if the defendant can show that both private and public interest factors strongly favor the case being heard in a different jurisdiction. Private interest factors might include the location of evidence or witnesses, while public interest factors could involve the administrative burden on Minnesota courts or the interest of another state in adjudicating the matter. The court will weigh these factors and may decide to dismiss the case if it finds that the connections to Minnesota are too weak and another forum is significantly more appropriate for resolving the dispute.