forum non conveniens doctrine in Ohio

2020Mendez, 775 F.3d 41, 47 (1st Cir.2014). 14 January Term, 2020 These clauses operate by “overrid[ing] the otherwise applicable rules (whether derived from statutes or rules of procedure) regarding venue and forum selection, including the forum non conveniens test.” Ex parte Riverfront, L.L.C., 196 So.3d 1167, 1173 (Ala.2015) (Murdock, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result). {¶ 31} “ ‘The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute.’ ” Chambers v. M

2020Mendez, 775 F.3d 41, 47 (1st Cir.2014). 14 January Term, 2020 These clauses operate by “overrid[ing] the otherwise applicable rules (whether derived from statutes or rules of procedure) regarding venue and forum selection, including the forum non conveniens test.” Ex parte Riverfront, L.L.C., 196 So.3d 1167, 1173 (Ala.2015) (Murdock, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result). {¶ 31} “ ‘The principle of forum non conveniens is simply that a court may resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by the letter of a general venue statute.’ ” Chambers v. M

2019Warren No. CA2013-10-103, 2014-Ohio-3293, ¶ 34 , quoting Walp v. Walp, 3d Dist.

2018Warren No. CA2013-10-103, 2014-Ohio-3293, ¶ 34 ; Calvary Industries v. Coral Chem.

2002See, e.g., Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc . (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 123 , 126 ; Watson v. Driver Mgmt., Inc . (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 509 ; Lazzaro v. Huffy Corp . (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 753 .

2002See Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc . (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 123 , 519 N.E.2d 370 ; Lazzaro v. Huffy Corp . (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 753 , 709 N.E.2d 580 ; Watson v. Driver Mgt., Inc . (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 509 , 646 N.E.2d 1187 . 3 See Goldstein v. Christiansen , 70 Ohio St.3d 232 , 236 , 1994-Ohio-229 , 638 N.E.2d 541 ; Fritz-Rumer-Cooke Co. v. Todd Sargent (Feb. 8, 2001), 10th Dist.

2002See, e.g., Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc . (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 123 , 126 ; Watson v. Driver Mgmt., Inc . (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 509 ; Lazzaro v. Huffy Corp . (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 753 .

2002See Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc . (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 123 , 519 N.E.2d 370 ; Lazzaro v. Huffy Corp . (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 753 , 709 N.E.2d 580 ; Watson v. Driver Mgt., Inc . (1994), 97 Ohio App.3d 509 , 646 N.E.2d 1187 . 3 See Goldstein v. Christiansen , 70 Ohio St.3d 232 , 236 , 1994-Ohio-229 , 638 N.E.2d 541 ; Fritz-Rumer-Cooke Co. v. Todd Sargent (Feb. 8, 2001), 10th Dist.

1988Additionally, the majority has, albeit weakly, attempted to distinguish this court’s most definitive statement to date concerning the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Mattone v. Argentina (1931), 123 Ohio St. 393 , 175 N.E. 603 , solely on the basis of its age and the passage of the Civil Rules in Ohio.

1988Additionally, the majority has, albeit weakly, attempted to distinguish this court’s most definitive statement to date concerning the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Mattone v. Argentina (1931), 123 Ohio St. 393 , 175 N.E. 603 , solely on the basis of its age and the passage of the Civil Rules in Ohio.

2020Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction is irrelevant because “ ‘ “[a] dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if no action had been brought at all.” ’ ” C.H. v. O’Malley, 158 Ohio St.3d 107 , 2019-Ohio-4382 , 140 N.E.3d 589 , ¶ 18, quoting Denham v. New Carlisle, 86 Ohio St.3d 594, 596 , 716 N.E.2d 184 (1999), quoting DeVille Photography, Inc. v. Bowers, 169 Ohio St. 267 , 272, 159 N.E.2d 443 (1959).

2020Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction is irrelevant because “ ‘ “[a] dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if no action had been brought at all.” ’ ” C.H. v. O’Malley, 158 Ohio St.3d 107 , 2019-Ohio-4382 , 140 N.E.3d 589 , ¶ 18, quoting Denham v. New Carlisle, 86 Ohio St.3d 594, 596 , 716 N.E.2d 184 (1999), quoting DeVille Photography, Inc. v. Bowers, 169 Ohio St. 267 , 272, 159 N.E.2d 443 (1959).

2020Whether the trial court retained jurisdiction is irrelevant because “ ‘ “[a] dismissal without prejudice leaves the parties as if no action had been brought at all.” ’ ” C.H. v. O’Malley, 158 Ohio St.3d 107 , 2019-Ohio-4382 , 140 N.E.3d 589 , ¶ 18, quoting Denham v. New Carlisle, 86 Ohio St.3d 594, 596 , 716 N.E.2d 184 (1999), quoting DeVille Photography, Inc. v. Bowers, 169 Ohio St. 267 , 272, 159 N.E.2d 443 (1959).

2020In any case, we indicated that there was a right to appeal, and inferior courts lack authority to deviate from our precedent but rather “are required to follow the law as it is interpreted by this court,” Mannion v. Sandel, 91 Ohio St.3d 318, 322 , 744 N.E.2d 759 (2001).

2020In any case, we indicated that there was a right to appeal, and inferior courts lack authority to deviate from our precedent but rather “are required to follow the law as it is interpreted by this court,” Mannion v. Sandel, 91 Ohio St.3d 318, 322 , 744 N.E.2d 759 (2001).

2020City Commercial Capital Corp., 114 Ohio St.3d 82 , 2007-Ohio-2942 , 868 N.E.2d 663 , at ¶ 12 (“Even though the trial court’s dismissal of the action against the appellants, for lack of personal 20 January Term, 2020 jurisdiction, is otherwise than on the merits, the trial court did not retain jurisdiction, and the dismissal is a final, appealable order”). {¶ 48} As a seminal treatise on practice and procedure has explained, “[t]he appealability of forum non conveniens dismissal orders is so well established * * * that most appeals are decided without comment on jurisdiction.” 15A Wright & Mill

2019Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court is permitted to dismiss an action to "further the ends of justice and to promote the convenience of the parties, even though jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court -7- Butler CA2018-07-134 chosen by the plaintiff." Calvary, 2017-Ohio-7279 at ¶ 16 , citing Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 35 Ohio St.3d 123, 125 (1988). {¶ 20} "In determining whether dismissal on the basis of forum non conveniens is proper, the trial court must consider the facts of each case, balancing the private interests of the litigants and the public

2018Geauga No. 2004-G-2557, 2004-Ohio-4697 , 2004 WL 1960087 , ¶ 12 (rule of jurisdictional priority "does not apply when an action is pending in another state[.]"). {¶ 10} The domestic relations court correctly noted that when competing cases are pending in Ohio and another state, the Ohio court has three options: (1) it can defer to the foreign state as a matter of comity; (2) go forward with the case; or (3) dismiss the action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

2014Auglaize No. 2-05-10, 2005-Ohio-4181, ¶ 8 . {¶ 35} The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismiss an action to further the ends of justice and to promote the convenience of the parties, even though jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court chosen by the plaintiff.

2007Requiring a state court to use a federal procedural standard would, in the court’s view, undermine the independent nature of the sovereign: “[W]hether [courts] should be considered as state or as Federal courts would from day to day depend not upon the character and source of the authority with which they were endowed by the government creating them, but upon the mere subject-matter of the controversy which they were considering.” Id. {¶ 21} The United States Supreme Court has also held that whether the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies to FELA cases in state court is a matter for the f

2007In reaching its holding, the court emphasized that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “does not bear upon the substantive right to recover, and is not a rule upon which * * * actors rely in making decisions about primary conduct — how to manage their business and what precautions to take.” Id. at 454, 114 S.Ct. 981 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 . {¶ 24} In the instant case, R.C. 2307.92 and 2307.93 are “neutral state Rule[s] regarding the administration of the state courts,” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 918 , 117 S.Ct. 1800 , 138 L.Ed.2d 108 , that do “not bear upon the substantive right to recover,” Miller, 51

2007In reaching its holding, the court emphasized that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “does not bear upon the substantive right to recover, and is not a rule upon which * * * actors rely in making decisions about primary conduct — how to manage their business and what precautions to take.” Id. at 454, 114 S.Ct. 981 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 . {¶ 24} In the instant case, R.C. 2307.92 and 2307.93 are “neutral state Rule[s] regarding the administration of the state courts,” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 918 , 117 S.Ct. 1800 , 138 L.Ed.2d 108 , that do “not bear upon the substantive right to recover,” Miller, 51

2007In reaching its holding, the court emphasized that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “does not bear upon the substantive right to recover, and is not a rule upon which * * * actors rely in making decisions about primary conduct — how to manage their business and what precautions to take.” Id. at 454, 114 S.Ct. 981 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 . {¶ 24} In the instant case, R.C. 2307.92 and 2307.93 are “neutral state Rule[s] regarding the administration of the state courts,” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 918 , 117 S.Ct. 1800 , 138 L.Ed.2d 108 , that do “not bear upon the substantive right to recover,” Miller, 51

2007In reaching its holding, the court emphasized that the doctrine of forum non conveniens “does not bear upon the substantive right to recover, and is not a rule upon which * * * actors rely in making decisions about primary conduct — how to manage their business and what precautions to take.” Id. at 454, 114 S.Ct. 981 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 . {¶ 24} In the instant case, R.C. 2307.92 and 2307.93 are “neutral state Rule[s] regarding the administration of the state courts,” Johnson, 520 U.S. at 918 , 117 S.Ct. 1800 , 138 L.Ed.2d 108 , that do “not bear upon the substantive right to recover,” Miller, 51

2007In Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 123 , 519 N.E.2d 370 , we reviewed a dismissal based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens. {¶ 12} In Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co. (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 303 , 56 O.O.2d 179 , 272 N.E.2d 127 , this court stated in paragraph one of the syllabus: “A judgment of a trial court sustaining motions to quash service of summons and dismissing defendants as parties to the action is a final appealable order.” We concluded that even though the motion to quash service was not a decision on the merits, it nevertheless was determinati

2007In Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 123 , 519 N.E.2d 370 , we reviewed a dismissal based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens. {¶ 12} In Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co. (1971), 27 Ohio St.2d 303 , 56 O.O.2d 179 , 272 N.E.2d 127 , this court stated in paragraph one of the syllabus: “A judgment of a trial court sustaining motions to quash service of summons and dismissing defendants as parties to the action is a final appealable order.” We concluded that even though the motion to quash service was not a decision on the merits, it nevertheless was determinati

2007Accordingly, we review the trial court's decision under normal forum non conveniens analysis. {¶ 17} In Lee v. Burnett , Franklin App. No. 07AP-40, 2007-Ohio-3742 , at ¶ 8-9 , this court discussed the doctrine of forum non conveniens, including the relevant factors to be considered in determining whether to dismiss an action, stating as follows: * * * The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismiss an action in order to further the ends of justice and to promote the convenience of the parties, even though jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court chosen by the plaintiff.

2007Accordingly, we review the trial court's decision under normal forum non conveniens analysis. {¶ 17} In Lee v. Burnett , Franklin App. No. 07AP-40, 2007-Ohio-3742 , at ¶ 8-9 , this court discussed the doctrine of forum non conveniens, including the relevant factors to be considered in determining whether to dismiss an action, stating as follows: * * * The doctrine of forum non conveniens permits a court to dismiss an action in order to further the ends of justice and to promote the convenience of the parties, even though jurisdiction and venue are proper in the court chosen by the plaintiff.

2006Racing Guild of Ohio v. Morgan (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 54 . {¶ 26} In Crawford I, the court found that "CIS Corporation was allocated between the parties by an order of the Domestic Relations Division of this County" and that "any dispute between [Saro and Daniel], as it addresses any claims relating to CIS Corporation, properly belongs before the Division of Domestic Relations of this county." {¶ 27} Although Saro argues it is unclear whether the Crawford I court's ruling was based on subject matter jurisdiction or the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court clearly stated that these claims

2005However, "dismissal is not an option at this stage in the proceedings." Id. {¶ 10} Subsequent to the decision in Hoppel , the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the doctrine of forum non conveniens in Chambers v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 123 .

2005Co. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 1 , 705 N.E.2d 370 . {¶ 6} In Chambers, supra, Ohio adopted the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens.

2005Co. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 1 , 705 N.E.2d 370 . {¶ 6} In Chambers, supra, Ohio adopted the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens.