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 Pennsylvania, the courts recognize the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a court 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, taking into account various private and public interest factors. While a Pennsylvania resident plaintiff's choice of forum is given deference, it is not absolute. The defendant has the opportunity to show that the balance of private interests (such as the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the location of evidence) and public interests (including the administrative difficulties for courts with congested dockets, the imposition of jury duty on residents of a community with no connection to the litigation, and the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home) weigh heavily in favor of litigating in a different jurisdiction. If the defendant can demonstrate that another forum is substantially more appropriate for the resolution of the dispute, the court may dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens.