The Many State Doctrines of Forum Non Conveniens

60 Pages Posted: 18 Mar 2022 Last revised: 5 May 2022

See all articles by William S. Dodge

William S. Dodge

University of California, Davis - School of Law

Maggie Gardner

Cornell Law School

Christopher A. Whytock

University of California, Irvine, School of Law

Date Written: February 21, 2022

Abstract

Forum non conveniens is not as “ancient” or as monolithic as U.S. courts often assume. The doctrine, which permits judges to decline to hear cases they believe would more appropriately be heard in another sovereign’s courts, is often used today by both state and federal courts to dismiss claims brought by against local businesses. The Supreme Court, however, only adopted a general doctrine of forum non conveniens in 1947; the doctrine’s “deep roots in the common law” are thought instead to be planted in the states.

This Article tests that account by surveying the forum non conveniens doctrines of all fifty states and the District of Columbia. What we found should change how judges, practitioners, and scholars view the doctrine. First, forum non conveniens in the states does not have a “long history”—it is a twentieth-century phenomenon. Second, before the 1950s, no states permitted dismissal of claims brought against local defendants. Third, state experience with forum non conveniens has been and continues to be highly variable. Most states adopted a forum non conveniens doctrine only after the Supreme Court did; many initially rejected it; and half a dozen still prohibit its use in cases involving in-state plaintiffs or in-state causes of action. Idaho has not recognized the doctrine at all.

In addition to these doctrinal lessons, the states’ experience with forum non conveniens provides a useful case study for examining what we term “procedural federalism,” meaning the interactions between state and federal institutions that affect procedural development.

Procedural federalism reminds us that the procedure we have is not necessarily the “best” procedure we could conceive, while drawing our attention to pockets of divergence that may offer promising reforms. More broadly, it suggests a different approach to history than the one currently ascendent in federal courts and commentary. The iterative nature of procedural federalism makes clear that doctrines like forum non conveniens do not have perfect pasts, needing only to be rediscovered to be understood properly. Rather, procedural history is useful because it can help us understand how we ended up with the doctrines we have today, in order to better evaluate where we should go next.

Keywords: forum non conveniens, procedural federalism

Suggested Citation

Dodge, William S. and Gardner, Maggie and Whytock, Christopher A., The Many State Doctrines of Forum Non Conveniens (February 21, 2022). 72 Duke Law Journal, Forthcoming, UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2022-11, Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 22-17, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4060356

William S. Dodge (Contact Author)

University of California, Davis - School of Law ( email )

Martin Luther King, Jr. Hall
Davis, CA CA 95616-5201
United States

Maggie Gardner

Cornell Law School ( email )

Myron Taylor Hall
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-4901
United States

Christopher A. Whytock

University of California, Irvine, School of Law ( email )

401 East Peltason Drive, Suite 1000
Irvine, CA 92697-8000
United States
(949) 824-0496 (Phone)

HOME PAGE: http://www.law.uci.edu

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
322
Abstract Views
1,465
Rank
142,430
PlumX Metrics