Forum Non Conveniens presentation

Forum Non Conveniens
Preliminary Question:
What is the difference between a motion for
change of venue and a forum non conveniens
motion?

1


FNC Predicates:
There is jurisdiction.
There could be proper venue in both counties.
It is almost overwhelmingly more fair to transfer
case to the county of defendant’s choosing.

2


SC Rule 187







Motion must be filed no later than 90 days after the last day
allowed for filing of that party’s answer.
Shall be scheduled to allow parties sufficient time to
conduct discovery on issues of fact raised by such motions.
Intrastate transfer – from one clerk to another

Dismissal:
 Def. must accept service of process from that court.
 Def. must waive defense of statute of limitations.

3


Forum Non Conveniens







First National Bank v. Guerine
What deference is given to forum
chosen by plaintiff ?
Private interest factors.
Public interest factors.
Burden on Defendant.

4


First National Bank v. Guerine




Plaintiffs filed their action in Cook Co. where Guerine resides.
Unless the balance strongly favors the defendant, plaintiff ’s choice of forum
should rarely be disturbed.
Factors to be considered:
 Private interests:
 Convenience of the parties
 Relative ease of access to sources of testimonial, documentary, and real
evidence
 All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and
inexpensive.
 Public interests:
 Interest in deciding localized controversies
 Unfairness of imposing the expense of a trial and burden of jury duty on
residents of a county with little connection to litigation
 Administrative difficulties presented by forcing more litigation into
congested fora.
 Court congestion is relatively insignificant.
5


Guerine, cont’d







Plaintiff ’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed
Plaintiff ’s interest receives less deference when neither plaintiff ’s

residence nor the site of the accident or injury is located in the
chosen forum.
Defendant must show that the plaintiff ’s chosen forum is
inconvenient to the defendant is another forum is more
convenient for all parties
 Cannot assert that plaintiff ’s chosen form is inconvenient for
the plaintiff.
In most instances, Pl’s choice of forum will prevail provided
venue is proper and inconvenience factors attached to such
forum do not greatly outweigh Pl’s substantial right to try the
case in the chosen forum.
6


Guerine, conclusion









Witnesses dispersed among several counties in the state.
Private interest factors
 One of the defendants and his passenger lives in Cook and did not file an
FNC claim.
 Other D headquartered in Indiana
 Accident in DeKalb

 Witnesses in Kane, Dupage and DeKalb
Public interest factors
 Defendant Guerine lives in Cook & drove on Cook Co. roads.
 While Cook Co. courts may be congested, congestion alone is not
dispositive.
While DeKalb Co. has significant ties to the case, Cook Co. does as well.
Today convenience has a different meaning.
Trial ct. abuses its discretion in granting an intrastate FNC motion
where the potential trial witnesses are scattered among several
counties, including Pl’s chosen forum.

7


More Cases on Forum Non Conveniens


Dawdy v Union Pacific
Traffic accident in Macoupin County
 Case filed in Madison Co.
 In choosing venue, why would plaintiff want to
play an away game?




Gridley v State Farm


La. Plaintiff filed class action in Madison Co.

Langenhorst v Norfolk
Southern RR
•

•
•

•

Pl. filed suit in St. Clair Co. for trainmotor vehicle accident from Clinton Co.
Defense witnesses from Clinton Co.
Close case. Trial judge might have ruled
for defense.
Applying abuse of discretion standard,
appellate and Supreme Courts affirmed.
9


Fennell v. Ill. Central RR.
•

•

Pl. filed FELA action in MS. Then after
dismissal, refiled in St. Clair Co.
S. Ct. reversed denial of dismissal, finding
abuse of discretion.
•

•

•

•

Pl. lived in MS
Asbestosis exposure occurred in MS and
LA.
Vast majority of witnesses in MS, not subject
to IL subpoena
IL had no interest in this MS litigation.
10


Glass v. DOT Transportation, 393 Ill. App. 3d 829 (1st
Dist. 2009)





Facts: Traffic accident in Mason Co. Mason Co.
emergency personnel investigated accident. Decedent
had been a resident of Champaign Co. Probate
proceeding in Champaign Co. Pl. appointed personal
rep. of estate. She filed the PI case in Cook Co.
where she resides. Def. driver is a resident of Adams
Co. His employer is a resident of Brown Co. Some
witnesses reside in Cook Co. Def. DOT did business in

Cook Co.
Witnesses scattered among 11 counties.
App. Ct. affirmed denial of transfer per FNC.

11


Appeal per Rule
Per 301 if dismissal
Per 306 if interlocutory
Standard of review on appeal: abuse
of discretion.

12


Definition of abuse of
discretion
A circuit court abuses its discretion in
balancing the relevant factors only where
no reasonable person would take the
view adopted by the circuit court.

13


Takeaways
Evidentiary burden: burden on the party
seeking transfer that the relevant factors
strongly favor transfer.

Affidavits can be helpful in meeting
movant’s burden. If defendant fails to supply
affidavits from its identified witnesses stating
that plaintiff’s chosen forum is inconvenient,
it can be fatal.

14