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 Oklahoma, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the forum chosen by the plaintiff is highly inconvenient and another jurisdiction is more appropriate for the trial. This doctrine is applied even when the defendant has sufficient contacts with Oklahoma to establish personal jurisdiction. The court will consider both private interests of the litigants, such as the ease of access to evidence and the convenience of the parties, and public interest factors, including the administrative difficulties for courts with congested dockets and the imposition of jury duty on residents of a community with no connection to the litigation. While the choice of forum by a resident plaintiff is given deference, it is not absolute. The defendant can challenge the plaintiff's choice by showing that the balance of private and public interest factors significantly favors another forum. The ultimate decision to dismiss a case on the grounds of forum non conveniens rests with the discretion of the trial court.