Forum non conveniens is one of those Civil Procedure topics that looks simple on paper but trips up bar takers because the MBE loves to test the details — specifically, which factors matter and when the court will actually dismiss.

Let’s fix that.

What Forum Non Conveniens Actually Means

Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine that allows a court to dismiss or transfer a case even when it has proper jurisdiction and venue. The idea is straightforward: just because a court can hear a case doesn’t mean it should. If the chosen forum is seriously inconvenient and a better alternative exists, the court can say no.

Notice what this doctrine is not. It’s not about jurisdiction. It’s not about whether venue is technically proper under the statute. Both of those things can be perfectly fine, and a court can still dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds. That distinction matters enormously on the MBE.

The Two-Part Framework You Need to Know

For forum non conveniens MBE questions, think in two steps. First, is there an adequate alternative forum? Second, does the balance of factors favor dismissal? The court only reaches the second question if the first is answered yes.

Step One: An Adequate Alternative Forum Must Exist

The alternative forum is adequate if the defendant is subject to jurisdiction there and the forum permits litigation of the subject matter of the dispute. This requirement has teeth. If the plaintiff would be unable to bring the claim at all in the alternative forum — say, because the statute of limitations has run or the legal system offers no meaningful remedy — courts have found that forum inadequate.

This is where MBE fact patterns like to hide the trap. They’ll give you a scenario where the defendant is pushing hard for dismissal, but the alternative forum has some procedural or substantive limitation that makes it genuinely inadequate. Read those facts carefully.

Step Two: Balancing the Private and Public Interest Factors

Once an adequate alternative forum exists, the court weighs two categories of factors.

Private interest factors focus on the convenience of the parties and access to the litigation itself. Courts look at:

If the key witnesses are all in a foreign country and can’t be compelled to appear in the chosen forum, that’s a significant private interest factor favoring dismissal.

Public interest factors look beyond the parties to the broader interests of the court system and the community. Courts consider:

A classic MBE-style scenario: a plaintiff from State A sues a foreign corporation in a federal court in State B, but the accident happened abroad, all the witnesses are abroad, and foreign law governs. The public interest factors — particularly local interest and familiarity with applicable law — weigh heavily toward dismissal.

The Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum Gets Deference

Here’s something the MBE tests directly: the plaintiff’s choice of forum is ordinarily given deference. Courts don’t dismiss lightly. The defendant bears the burden of showing that the balance of factors tips strongly in favor of an alternative forum.

That deference is not unlimited, though. When the plaintiff is a foreign national who chose a U.S. forum primarily for the perceived advantages of U.S. litigation — more favorable law, higher damages, better discovery — courts give that choice less deference. The reasoning is that the plaintiff’s home forum interest is weaker when the plaintiff has no real connection to the chosen forum.

This is a nuance the MBE can exploit. Watch for fact patterns where the plaintiff is a foreign citizen suing in a U.S. federal court over events that occurred entirely abroad. The reduced deference combined with strong private and public interest factors pointing elsewhere makes dismissal much more likely.

Forum Non Conveniens vs. Transfer of Venue — Don’t Confuse Them

This is a common mistake. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court can transfer a case to any district where it might have been brought, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. That’s a transfer — the case stays in the federal system.

Forum non conveniens, by contrast, typically results in dismissal so the case can be refiled in a foreign court or state court system outside the federal court’s transfer authority. A federal court can’t transfer a case to a court in another country. So when the adequate alternative forum is a foreign court, forum non conveniens dismissal is the mechanism, not § 1404(a) transfer.

On the MBE, if the alternative forum is another federal district, you’re probably looking at a transfer question. If the alternative forum is a court in another country, you’re looking at forum non conveniens.

A Quick Hypothetical to Lock It In

Imagine this: A citizen of Brazil is injured on an oil rig off the coast of Brazil. The rig is owned by a corporation incorporated in Delaware with its principal place of business in Texas. The plaintiff files suit in federal court in Texas. The defendant moves to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, arguing that all witnesses, evidence, and relevant events are in Brazil, and Brazilian courts have jurisdiction over the defendant.

Walk through the analysis. Is there an adequate alternative forum? Yes — Brazil has jurisdiction over the defendant and permits this type of tort claim. Now balance the factors. Private interest factors: all the evidence and witnesses are in Brazil, compulsory process over those witnesses is unavailable in Texas, and the costs of transporting everything to Texas are enormous. Public interest factors: Texas has little local interest in a dispute between a Brazilian citizen and an accident that happened in Brazilian waters, and Brazilian courts are more familiar with applicable Brazilian law. The plaintiff’s choice of forum gets reduced deference because the plaintiff is a foreign citizen with no real connection to Texas. Dismissal is appropriate.

That’s the kind of reasoning the MBE rewards.

What the FlashTables Civil Procedure Table Covers

FlashTables is a set of professionally formatted two-column PDF rule tables covering all seven MBE subjects — 704 rules total, organized by the official NCBE Subject Matter Outline. The forum non conveniens rule is one of 99 Civil Procedure rules laid out side-by-side in the table, with the rule of law in one column and the definition and elements in the other. If you’re a 1L, 2L, or 3L building your Civil Procedure outline, it gives you clean black-letter law to anchor your notes. If you’re a bar taker, you can use the tables for rapid active recall — run through the private interest factors, the public interest factors, and the deference rule until they come back instantly. You can find the full table at getflashtables.com.

Key Takeaways for the MBE

Before you move on, make sure these points are locked in:

Get those elements straight, and forum non conveniens stops being a trap and starts being free points.