forum non conveniens doctrine in Alaska

2024Under traditional forum non conveniens analysis, a court may consider whether the remedy provided by the 47 See, e.g., Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 247 (1981) (“The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry.”); see also Bromley v. Mitchell, 902 P.2d 797, 800 (Alaska 1995) (listing “five factors relevant to a forum non conveniens determination: ease of access to proof, availability and cost of witnesses, the possibility that the forum was chosen to harass, the enforceability o

1997The mariners argue that, since the case was dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the case was not resolved on the merits, and Foster therefore cannot be the prevailing party within the terms of Civil Rule 82. 10 We recently considered the same argument in Bromley v. Mitchell, 902 P.2d 797 (Alaska 1995).

1995Id. at 908 (citing Goodwine v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 481 , 47 Cal.Rptr. 201, 204 , 407 P.2d 1, 4 (1965) (noting general desirability of litigating local matters in local courts)).

1995Id. at 908 (citing Goodwine v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.2d 481 , 47 Cal.Rptr. 201, 204 , 407 P.2d 1, 4 (1965) (noting general desirability of litigating local matters in local courts)).

2024We have previously recognized these Guidelines as “persuasive.” State v. Cissy A., 513 P.3d 999, 1009 (Alaska 2022). 33 2016 BIA GUIDELINES, supra note 32, at 49. 34 Id. at 48-49. 35 Id. at 49. 36 Id. at 48. -11- 7718 considering certain factors when deciding whether to transfer jurisdiction. 37 With respect to placement, the Guidelines reiterate that “whether the Tribal court could change the child’s placement” is an inappropriate basis for finding good cause to deny a transfer petition.38 The Guidelines note that state courts “cannot know or accurately predict which placement a Tribal court

2024NO. 95-1386, at 19 (1978)). 28 Simmonds v. Parks, 329 P.3d 995, 1009 (Alaska 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Holyfield, 490 U.S. at 36 ). 29 See 25 C.F.R. § 23.118 (c) (2023). -10- 7718 deny a transfer petition. 30 These prohibited factors include “[w]hether transfer could affect the placement of the child.”31 The BIA has also published nonbinding guidelines (the Guidelines) that elaborate on the good cause exception. 32 According to the Guidelines, the good cause determination “should address which court is best positioned to adjudicate the child- custody proceeding, not pre

2024Under traditional forum non conveniens analysis, a court may consider whether the remedy provided by the 47 See, e.g., Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 247 (1981) (“The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry.”); see also Bromley v. Mitchell, 902 P.2d 797, 800 (Alaska 1995) (listing “five factors relevant to a forum non conveniens determination: ease of access to proof, availability and cost of witnesses, the possibility that the forum was chosen to harass, the enforceability o

2020If an Alaska court has jurisdiction over a custody proceeding, it may cede that jurisdiction under AS 25.30.360 if it “determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.”37 Alaska Statute 25.30.360(b) lays out factors that a superior court should consider before determining that a forum is inconvenient for custody proceedings: Among these factors are the amount of time the child has lived outside the state, the location of relevant evidence, “the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously,

1995The doctrine of forum non conveniens applies where the plaintiff is a domiciliary of the forum state In Crowson v. Sealaska Corp., 705 P.2d 905 (Alaska 1985), we discussed five factors relevant to a forum non conveniens determination: ease of access to proof, availability and cost of witnesses, the possibility that the forum was chosen to harass, the enforceability of the judgment, and the burden on the community of litigating matters not of local concern.

1995Crowson recognizes this principle when it notes that “[w]here .., plaintiff is a bona fide resident of the forum state, the doctrine of forum non conveniens has only an extremely limited application.” Crowson, 705 P.2d at 908 (affirming lower court’s refusal to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds *801 where plaintiff was Alaska corporation with principal place of business in Juneau).