forum non conveniens doctrine in Kentucky

2023Despite having jurisdiction, Kentucky courts have “not only . . . a right, but also a duty to consider the doctrine and to decline jurisdiction, if appropriate.” Williams v. Williams, 611 S.W.2d 807, 809 (Ky.App. 1981).

2018It is a doctrine that "vests in a court, before which an action is brought, the discretion to refuse to accept jurisdiction, and such a determination will not be reversed by an appellate court, except where such determination is found to be an abuse in the exercise of that discretion." Williams v. Williams , 611 S.W.2d 807 , 809 (Ky.App. 1981).

2020Here, we hold the dismissal was proper, if not for lack of particular case and/or personal jurisdiction, then under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. -5- The “doctrine of forum non conveniens recognizes that there are certain instances in which a court properly vested with jurisdiction and venue may, nonetheless, dismiss an action if it determines that it is more convenient for the litigants and witnesses that the action be tried in a different forum.” Beaven v. McAnulty, 980 S.W.2d 284, 287 (Ky. 1998), superseded by statute as stated in Seymour Charter Buslines, Inc. v. Hopper, 111 S.W.3d

2007Under these circumstances, the mandatory language of the statute required the circuit judge to transfer this case. [9] But the dissent in Hopper correctly points out that KRS 452.105 provides for transfer of cases initially brought in improper venues and does not address the Beaven v. McAnulty situation of whether a case can be transferred when it is initially brought in a proper venue, yet the trial court determines that it should not hear the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens: Although the majority opinion posits that the purpose of the statute was to abrogate our decision in [

2023“The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial judge’s decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, or unsupported by sound legal principles.” Commonwealth v. English, 993 S.W.2d 941, 945 (Ky. 1999). -12- “Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a stay or a dismissal without prejudice may be appropriate where the chosen forum has jurisdiction and venue, but where another court also having proper jurisdiction and being a proper venue would be a more convenient forum to hear the case.” Stewart v. Kentuckiana Medical Center, LLC, 604 S.W.3d 264 , 270 (Ky.App. 2019).

2023Charles, 291 S.W.3d 720, 725 (Ky. App. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted) (“The doctrine of forum non conveniens is an exception to the general rule that a court is duty bound to hear cases within its vested jurisdiction.

2023As to the issue of the substantive law being less favorable to the Estates in Indiana, as explained in Piper Aircraft Company, 454 U.S. at 247 , 102 S.Ct. at 261 , “[t]he possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry.” However, that does not mean that it should not be given any weight at all, as the Supreme Court observed: “We do not hold that the possibility of an unfavorable change in law should never be a relevant consideration in a forum non -28- conveniens inquiry.” Id. at 254 , 102 S.Ct.

2023As to the issue of the substantive law being less favorable to the Estates in Indiana, as explained in Piper Aircraft Company, 454 U.S. at 247 , 102 S.Ct. at 261 , “[t]he possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry.” However, that does not mean that it should not be given any weight at all, as the Supreme Court observed: “We do not hold that the possibility of an unfavorable change in law should never be a relevant consideration in a forum non -28- conveniens inquiry.” Id. at 254 , 102 S.Ct.

2021Hollingsworth v. Hollingsworth, 798 S.W.2d 145, 147 (Ky. App. 1990). -3- Appellant’s first argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion to change venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

1998The next Kentucky case in which the doctrine was substantively discussed and applied is Roos, supra. The Roos Court explained that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “recognizes that there are certain instances in which a court properly vested with jurisdiction and venue may, nonetheless, dismiss an action if it determines that it is more convenient for the litigants and witnesses that the action be tried in a different forum.” Roos, 580 S.W.2d at 508 (emphasis added).

1998The next Kentucky case in which the doctrine was substantively discussed and applied is Roos, supra. The Roos Court explained that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “recognizes that there are certain instances in which a court properly vested with jurisdiction and venue may, nonetheless, dismiss an action if it determines that it is more convenient for the litigants and witnesses that the action be tried in a different forum.” Roos, 580 S.W.2d at 508 (emphasis added).