Constitutionality.

- O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31(c) was not a proper exercise of the legislature's authority to enact laws which allowed the superior and state courts to change venue; furthermore, because O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) vested power to change venue in the court, and not in a defendant, as did O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31(c), O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) was proper under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. VIII, and did not violate Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. II, Para. IV. EHCA Cartersville, LLC v. Turner, 280 Ga. 333, 626 S.E.2d 482 (2006).

O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) does not automatically divest a superior court of its jurisdiction; to the contrary, a transfer of venue under the statute occurs only after the trial court exercises initial jurisdiction over the case to determine whether, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside the state. Accordingly, § 9-10-31.1(a) remains constitutional under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. IV, Para. I. Hawthorn Suites Golf Resorts, LLC v. Feneck, 282 Ga. 554, 651 S.E.2d 664 (2007).

Mandatory condition precedent to dismissal under doctrine of forum non conveniens.

- In light of the plain language of O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(b), a written stipulation, which stated that "with respect to a new action on the claim commenced by the plaintiff," the defendants will waive the statute of limitations defense "in all other states of the United States," and which was filed with the trial court or with the clerk of court, was a mandatory condition precedent to the dismissal of a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242, 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005).

O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 is not one of the specific provisions listed in Ga. L. 2005, p. 1, § 15(b) (Act) as applying only with respect to causes of action arising on or after the effective date of the Act; thus, under § 15(b), O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 shall apply to causes of action pending on the effective date, unless such application will be unconstitutional. Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242, 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005).

Trial court's dismissal of a case based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens was vacated as, even though the case was dismissed before O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 was enacted, the appeal was pending on the effective date of the act and O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 applied; the trial court's citation to a case in its summary dismissal order did not show that the trial court considered each O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) factor in making a decision. Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242, 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005).

Georgia's forum non conveniens statute does not distinguish between motions to dismiss and motions to transfer, but rather states that in determining whether to grant a motion to dismiss an action or to transfer venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the court shall give consideration to the seven factors. Therefore, trial courts must consider the factors in ruling on either kind of motion. Kennestone Hosp., Inc. v. Lamb, 288 Ga. App. 289, 653 S.E.2d 858 (2007).

Strictly construing O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, the Georgia Court of Appeals holds that the statute does not authorize a trial court to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non conveniens without a written motion from a party and the required stipulation. Nothing in the statute indicates that a trial court is authorized to raise the issue of forum non conveniens on its own or to dismiss a case on that ground without the required stipulation. Wegman v. Wegman, 338 Ga. App. 648, 791 S.E.2d 431 (2016).

Trial court abused the court's discretion by dismissing the complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens because O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 does not authorize a trial court to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non conveniens without a written motion from a party and the required stipulation. Wegman v. Wegman, 338 Ga. App. 648, 791 S.E.2d 431 (2016).

Seven factors must be considered.

- It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court not to address each of the seven factors listed in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a), and in order to ensure that the trial court's decision-making process was guided by the statutory requirements, the trial court must make specific findings either in writing or orally on the record demonstrating that the court has considered all seven of the factors. The same rules apply to a court considering whether the court should decline jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, O.C.G.A. Art. 3, Ch. 9, T. 19, as an inconvenient forum in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 19-9-67. Murillo v. Murillo, 300 Ga. App. 61, 684 S.E.2d 126 (2009).

Forum non conveniens finding proper.

- In a suit by a Delaware company against a consultant with regard to property the consultant had managed in Louisiana, the trial court properly held that Louisiana was a more convenient forum than Georgia; the relative ease of access to sources of proof favored Louisiana, the witnesses could more easily be compelled to testify there, any premises to be viewed were in Louisiana, the company would not be inconvenienced by traveling to Louisiana while the consultant would be inconvenienced by traveling to Georgia, a Georgia court would have difficulty in administering the case, and Georgia's interest in the matter was insignificant. Hawthorn Suites Golf Resorts, LLC v. Feneck, 282 Ga. 554, 651 S.E.2d 664 (2007).

Fulton County Superior Court did not err in transferring patients' medical malpractice case to Cobb County because the court made written findings of fact reflecting an analysis of the procedural framework of the forum non conveniens statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a), specifically considering and weighing each of the seven factors enumerated, and the court further expressly included additional specifics with regards to those of the seven factors the court deemed relevant in the court's consideration and determination that transfer was warranted; the Cobb County Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over medical malpractice cases, and venue was also proper in that county, and because the patients made no showing of harm by the adjudication of their case in Cobb County Superior Court, the patients demonstrated no basis to disturb the judgment entered against the patients upon the Cobb County jury's verdict. Lamb v. Javed, 303 Ga. App. 278, 692 S.E.2d 861 (2010).

Georgia Court of Appeals has held that the Georgia legislature clearly intended to permit trial courts to dismiss suits that would be more appropriately heard in any forum outside the state, including foreign countries. La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc., 342 Ga. App. 454, 803 S.E.2d 609 (2017).

In Georgia, the doctrine of forum non conveniens is codified in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, which provides that the trial court may dismiss an action if the interests of justice and convenience of parties renders another forum more appropriate; the party seeking dismissal bears the burden of showing dismissal is warranted. La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc., 342 Ga. App. 454, 803 S.E.2d 609 (2017).

In a suit brought by a Michigan couple after the wife was injured when a zip line inspected by a Georgia company used in the Dominican Republic broke, the dismissal of the suit was affirmed under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1 because after weighing all of the factors, the location of the witnesses, the site of the accident, and the inability of a Georgia court to compel Dominican Republic witnesses to appear tilted the balance toward dismissing the case on the basis of forum non conveniens. La Fontaine v. Signature Research, Inc., 342 Ga. App. 454, 803 S.E.2d 609 (2017).

Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion in granting dismissal of the breach of contract action based on forum non conveniens, because the written finding of fact, supported by the evidence including lack of a showing that the computer equipment in Georgia would be necessary in the case and that the hirer had already filed a related suit in California, reflected an analysis of all seven factors. Woodard Events, LLC v. Coffee House Indus., LLC, 341 Ga. App. 526, 801 S.E.2d 322 (2017).

Specific findings required.

- Before dismissing a case on the ground of forum non conveniens, a trial court must make specific findings either in writing or orally on the record demonstrating that the court has considered all seven of the factors set forth in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a); a summary order is not sufficient. Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242, 614 S.E.2d 875 (2005).

When a trial court denied a motion to transfer venue without making findings of fact considering the factors in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, remand was required. The statute did not require findings only with regard to motions to dismiss, and it did not require findings only when a motion was granted. Kennestone Hosp., Inc. v. Lamb, 288 Ga. App. 289, 653 S.E.2d 858 (2007).

Because a superior court dismissed an action between two insurers on forum non conveniens grounds without finding on the record that: (1) an adequate alternative forum existed; (2) dismissal served the interest of justice and the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as guided by a consideration of the seven enumerated factors in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a); and, therefore, (3) the claim or action was more properly heard in a forum outside the state, said dismissal amounted to an abuse of discretion warranting vacation of the dismissal, reinstatement of the case, and an order remanding the case for further hearing. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Chicago Ins. Co., 281 Ga. App. 152, 635 S.E.2d 411 (2006).

In a declaratory judgment action filed by an insurer seeking an order that the insurer had no duty to provide a defense or coverage under the insurance policy with the insured, because the trial court failed to comply with all the factors under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a), and the vanishing venue doctrine did not apply, the venue transfer order was vacated, and the case was remanded for further hearing. Ga. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Valley Wood, Inc., 290 Ga. App. 177, 659 S.E.2d 410 (2008).

A trial court erred in denying Florida defendants' motion to dismiss a Georgia suit for forum non conveniens because the court failed to make specific findings, either in writing or orally, on the record, demonstrating that it had considered all of the factors in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) as required. GrayRobinson, P.A. v. Smith, 302 Ga. App. 375, 690 S.E.2d 656 (2010).

Although a trial court was authorized to dismiss the child custody portion of a husband's case on the basis of forum non conveniens under O.C.G.A. § 19-9-67(a), the court erred in dismissing the husband's divorce case as well because he had a right to litigate his divorce in his county of residence. Although the trial court could arguably decline to exercise jurisdiction over the divorce case under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, the trial court did not invoke § 9-10-31.1 or consider the factors that the statute enumerated. Spies v. Carpenter, 296 Ga. 131, 765 S.E.2d 340 (2014).

Requiring a finding on each statutory factor.

- With regard to a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the Georgia Supreme Court supposes that some case might require a finding on each factor under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) to adequately explain the decision but cannot say that such findings always or even usually are required; however, to the extent that the Georgia Court of Appeals has held otherwise in Park Ave. Bank v. Steamboat City Dev. Co., 317 Ga. App. 289 (2012); GrayRobinson, P.A. v. Smith, 302 Ga. App. 375 (2010); Ga. Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Valley Wood, Inc., 290 Ga. App. 177 (2008); Kennestone Hosp. v. Lamb, 288 Ga. App. 289 (2007); Federal Ins. Co. v. Chicago Ins. Co., 281 Ga. App. 152 (2006); Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co., 273 Ga. App. 242 (2005), the Georgia Supreme Court overrules those decisions. By the statute's express terms, the trial court is required to consider each of the statutory factors enumerated in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a), but the statute does not expressly require specific findings of fact on each factor. Wang v. Liu, 292 Ga. 568, 740 S.E.2d 136 (2013).

Denial of motion to transfer not improper.

- Hospital failed to meet its burden of showing an abuse of the trial court's discretion in the denial of its motion to transfer venue of a medical malpractice case; among other things, there was no showing that litigating the matter in Bibb County, where several of the defendants resided, posed difficulties with regard to interviewing or securing witnesses and evidence or that relocating the case to Pulaski County would allow easier access; further, since Bibb and Pulaski Counties were not at great distance from one another, it was difficult to accept the assertions that what was at issue affected the receipt of medical care solely in Pulaski County or that there was no local interest in deciding the case in Bibb County. R.J. Taylor Mem. Hosp., Inc. v. Beck, 280 Ga. 660, 631 S.E.2d 684 (2006).

In a medical malpractice case, the trial court properly denied a hospital owner's motion to transfer the case from Fulton county to Spalding county, where the hospital was located, as the physician resided in Fulton county, the plaintiff's expert witnesses would be flying into an airport there, the attorneys were located there, and the record did not show a need for compulsory process or a need to view the premises or that litigation there would inconvenience the owner; furthermore, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) did not single out medical malpractice actions for different consideration or treatment as to venue. Blackmon v. Tenet Healthsystem Spalding, Inc., 288 Ga. App. 137, 653 S.E.2d 333 (2007), rev'd on other grounds, 284 Ga. 369, 667 S.E.2d 348 (2008).

In an auto negligence suit, a trial court did not abuse the court's discretion by denying the defendant's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) because the court held a hearing and evaluated the defendant's claim as to the non conveniens factors and denied the motion based on the location of the collision, the close proximity of the two venues at issue, the comparative inconveniences to the parties, the location of the witnesses, and the difficulties of compulsory process in either venue. Gowdy v. Schley, 317 Ga. App. 693, 732 S.E.2d 774 (2012).

Trial court was not shown to have erred by denying the defendant's motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens because the defendant's counsel approved the form of the order on the motion to dismiss; therefore, the defendant could not complain that the record had no explanation of the decision of the trial court so as to permit meaningful appellate review and because the record had no explanation of that decision, the defendant could not carry the burden to show that the trial court abused the court's discretion when the court denied the motion. Wang v. Liu, 292 Ga. 568, 740 S.E.2d 136 (2013).

Granting of motion to transfer improper.

- Trial court erred in granting a debtor's motion to transfer a bank's action alleging breach of a loan agreement and promissory note because the trial court's focus solely on the note and the note's venue clause was in contradiction of O.C.G.A. § 13-2-2(4); the promissory note was a loan document subject to the document protocols that were attached to the loan agreement, and no showing was contained in the record that the forum selection clause in the document protocols was unenforceable. Park Ave. Bank v. Steamboat City Dev. Co., 317 Ga. App. 289, 728 S.E.2d 925 (2012).

Dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds proper.

- An appellant's suit to collect under a contract was properly dismissed on the ground of forum non conveniens under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) where: seven of the nine appellees were Puerto Rican corporations; the hotel project involved was in Puerto Rico; evidence and witnesses pertaining to the appellees' defense were primarily in Puerto Rico; any site visit would have to take place in Puerto Rico; over 60,000 documents relating to the project were being maintained there; other cases arising from the project were pending there; a Puerto Rican court had appointed a special master; and there was a question as to whether the appellees had sufficient minimum contacts with Georgia. John Hardy Group, Inc. v. Cayo Largo Hotel Assocs., 286 Ga. App. 588, 649 S.E.2d 826 (2007).

Alleged wife's suit for a declaration that she was the common law wife of a decedent was properly dismissed for forum non conveniens under O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) because the issue was already pending in a Florida probate court, where the wife had filed for letters of administration, and involved mainly Florida residents and a Florida estate. Collier v. Wehmeier, 313 Ga. App. 421, 721 S.E.2d 919 (2011).

Trial court did not err by ruling on the motion to dismiss without allowing the appellants to obtain discovery related to the issue of forum non conveniens because the appellants did not articulate any evidence which the appellants hoped such discovery would uncover that would be relevant to that issue. Hawkins v. Blair, 334 Ga. App. 898, 780 S.E.2d 515 (2015).

Trial court did not err in dismissing the appellants' complaint on the ground of forum non conveniens because the relative ease of access to sources of proof favored dismissal as every party to the suit was a resident of South Carolina and the law offices were located in South Carolina; the appellants' right to pursue the appellants remedy would not be adversely affected if the case was dismissed from the Georgia court as both parties were South Carolina residents and the alleged injury occurred in South Carolina where the money taken from the accounts was received by the law firm; and the alleged injury would have been suffered in South Carolina, and the appellees' last acts to make the appellees liable also would have occurred in South Carolina. Hawkins v. Blair, 334 Ga. App. 898, 780 S.E.2d 515 (2015).

Appeal dismissed as moot.

- Patients' appeal of a judgment entered against them in a medical malpractice action on the ground that it was error to grant a motion to transfer filed by a hospital and corporation pursuant to the forum non conveniens statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, was dismissed as moot because the patients admitted in their appellate brief that their case had already been adjudicated, and it was too late for the patients to obtain an adjudication of their case in the Fulton County Superior Court; therefore, any determination by the court of appeals regarding whether the Fulton County Superior Court was authorized under the forum non conveniens statute to transfer their case to Cobb County Superior Court for adjudication would be an abstract exercise unrelated to any existing facts or rights. Lamb v. Javed, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (Jan. 19, 2010).

Waiver of claim.

- Patients waived their claim that the Fulton Superior Court failed to make oral or written findings of fact reflecting an analysis of the seven factors enumerated in O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) because they acquiesced to the transfer order; the patients chose not to challenge the propriety of the transfer ruling on the grounds they asserted on appeal, despite having options and the opportunity to do so, and there was no dispute that the Cobb County Superior Count had subject-matter jurisdiction over medical malpractice cases and that venue was also proper in that county. Lamb v. Javed, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (Jan. 19, 2010).

In a payee's action alleging that the makers breached promissory notes, the trial court erred in granting the makers' motion to dismiss under the forum non conveniens statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1, because the language of the forum selection clauses in the notes precluded the makers from seeking to dismiss the cases based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens and since the makers agreed in the makers' promissory notes to waive any claims contrary to the provisions of the forum selection clauses, the makers waived the ability to seek such a determination under the statute; O.C.G.A. § 9-10-31.1(a) provides for the forum non conveniens determination to occur on written motion of a party, and the statute does not prohibit contracting parties from waiving the parties' option of moving for transfer or dismissal under the statute. Int'l Greetings USA, Inc. v. Cammack, 306 Ga. App. 786, 703 S.E.2d 386 (2010).

Appellate review.

- When an appeal properly is taken from the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the appellant is entitled to meaningful appellate review, even if that review is only for an abuse of discretion. Wegman v. Wegman, 338 Ga. App. 648, 791 S.E.2d 431 (2016).

Cited in In the Interest of M. P., 338 Ga. App. 696, 791 S.E.2d 592 (2016).