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.
The personal injury bar’s argument against venue and forum reform – that a plaintiff should be able to file a lawsuit in the jurisdiction of her choice – fails to address the hardship faced by defendants who are required to appear in courtrooms in jurisdictions with no logical connection to the claim, where the fundamental concept of “equal justice under law” may not apply.
Notifications
