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 New Mexico, 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 factors such as the location of evidence, the convenience of the parties, the burden on the court system, and the interests of justice. While a New Mexico resident plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, it is not absolute. The defendant can still argue that the balance of private and public interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal in favor of a more appropriate forum. This includes considerations of whether the legal action has a significant connection to New Mexico or whether another jurisdiction has a more substantial interest in the case. The court's decision to dismiss a case based on forum non conveniens is discretionary and will be based on an evaluation of all relevant factors.