In a diversity action arising from a plane crash, the action is filed in a federal court in State A. The airline seeks dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Which motion is most likely to succeed?

In a diversity action arising from a plane crash, the action is filed in a federal court in State A. The airline seeks dismissal under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Which motion is most likely to succeed?

• A. A motion to dismiss the action for improper venue.
• B. A motion to dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• C. A motion to dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
• D. A motion to transfer the action to a federal court in State C.

Answer: (C)

Forum non conveniens lets a federal court dismiss a case when there is an adequate alternative forum and the balance of private and public interests favors that forum. In a plane-crash diversity action filed in State A, the airline can argue that most witnesses, evidence, and the relevant law are located in State C (or in another appropriate forum) and that trial there would be more convenient and just. If the airline shows that the alternative forum is available and adequate and that private factors (witness accessibility, evidence, costs) and public factors (court workload, local interest, applicability of law) favor the other forum, the federal court may dismiss. This is different from improper venue or lack of personal jurisdiction, which are not about weighing convenience against an alternative forum. It’s also different from transferring the case to State C; forum non conveniens permits dismissal when the most appropriate forum is outside the current forum, whereas transfer keeps the case alive in a different court.

Forum non conveniens lets a federal court dismiss a case when there is an adequate alternative forum and the balance of private and public interests favors that forum. In a plane-crash diversity action filed in State A, the airline can argue that most witnesses, evidence, and the relevant law are located in State C (or in another appropriate forum) and that trial there would be more convenient and just. If the airline shows that the alternative forum is available and adequate and that private factors (witness accessibility, evidence, costs) and public factors (court workload, local interest, applicability of law) favor the other forum, the federal court may dismiss. This is different from improper venue or lack of personal jurisdiction, which are not about weighing convenience against an alternative forum. It’s also different from transferring the case to State C; forum non conveniens permits dismissal when the most appropriate forum is outside the current forum, whereas transfer keeps the case alive in a different court.