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 Tennessee, 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 resolution of the dispute. This doctrine is applied even when the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and the defendant has sufficient contacts with the state. The court will consider both private interest factors, such as the convenience for parties and witnesses, and public interest factors, such as administrative and legal system burdens, when deciding whether to dismiss a case on this basis. While a Tennessee resident plaintiff's choice of forum is given deference, it is not absolute. A defendant can challenge the plaintiff's choice by showing that the balance of private and public interest factors strongly favors litigation in a different forum. The court's decision to invoke forum non conveniens is discretionary and will be based on the specifics of the case, including the connection of the case to the forum state.