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 Texas, the doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it would be more convenient for the parties and witnesses to have the case heard in a different jurisdiction. This doctrine is applied even if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant and there are 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 concerns of the forum state. While a Texas resident plaintiff's choice of forum is given deference, it is not absolute. The defendant can still argue that the balance of private and public interest factors justifies dismissal in favor of a more appropriate forum. This ensures that the case is tried in the location that is most convenient and fair for all involved, and where the case has the most significant connections.
