Forum and Venue

Venue and forum non conveniens are two concepts that relate to ensuring that lawsuits have a logical connection with the jurisdiction in which they are heard. Venue rules govern where, within a state, an action may be heard. Forum non conveniens, a related concept, allows a court to refuse to hear a case if there is a more appropriate forum in which the case could and should be heard. Although similar to venue, forum non conveniens contemplates that the more appropriate forum will be in another jurisdiction (often another state) rather than in a different area of the same state.

Venue and forum non conveniens laws that allow cases to be brought in jurisdictions that have little or no relation to the defendant or the act giving rise to the cause of action facilitate forum shopping. Forum shopping is a term that describes the actions by some personal injury lawyers of filing their cases in pro-plaintiff jurisdictions, where the fundamental concept of “equal justice under law” does not apply. ATRA calls these jurisdictions “judicial hellholes.”

ATRA supports venue reform that requires plaintiffs to bring their cases where they live or where they were injured, or where the defendant’s principal place of business is located. ATRA supports forum non conveniens reform that ousts a case brought in one jurisdiction where the plaintiff lives elsewhere, the injury arose elsewhere, and the facts of the case and witnesses are located elsewhere. By strengthening the rules governing venue and forum non conveniens, both legislatures (who pass the rules) and courts (who apply the rules) can ensure that the cases are heard in a court that has a logical connection to the claim, rather than a court that will produce the highest award for the plaintiff.