Forum Non Conveniens: Moving a California Lawsuit to the Place Where the Dispute Belongs
Last updated: November 2026. Reviewed by Pavel Kolmogorov, California business litigation attorney (State Bar No. 321018).
Forum non conveniens is the doctrine that lets a court decline a case it could hear because another forum is the better place to try it. California codified it in Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30. The defendant must show that a suitable alternative forum exists and that private and public interests favor trial there. If it succeeds, the court stays or dismisses the California case on conditions it finds just. Kolmogorov Law, P.C. litigates these motions for companies on each side.
Call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online to discuss whether your case belongs in California.
The forum non conveniens statute and the two-step test
When a court finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard outside this state, it shall stay or dismiss the action, in whole or in part, on any conditions that may be just. (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30, subd. (a).) The California Supreme Court turned that sentence into a sequence. The court first decides whether the alternate forum is a suitable place for trial. If it is, the court weighs the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in keeping the case here. The defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof, and the trial court's ruling receives substantial deference. (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751-752.)
This page covers the motion where no contract clause picks the forum. Where one does, the analysis changes, and our page on forum selection clauses covers both that and the filing deadlines under section 418.10. Moving a case between California counties is a venue question instead.
Step one: a suitable alternative forum
Suitability is a threshold question, and it is narrow. According to Stangvik, it turns on whether an action may be commenced in the other jurisdiction and a valid judgment obtained there against the defendant. Convenience is not part of it. A forum is not suitable if the defendant cannot be subjected to jurisdiction there. The same is true if the claim would be time-barred there, unless the court accepts the defendant's stipulation not to raise that defense. In Stangvik the defendants stipulated to jurisdiction abroad and to tolling of the limitations period, and that settled the point.
The court also held that the fact that the other forum's law is less favorable should not be given any weight, so long as some remedy is afforded there. Which law a California court would apply is a separate subject, covered on our page about choice of law clauses.
Step two: private and public interests
The private interest factors are the ones that make trial and enforcement of the judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive. Stangvik lists the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for unwilling witnesses.
The public interest factors include avoiding added burden on congested local courts, protecting potential jurors from deciding cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the other jurisdiction. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.)
How much each party's home matters
A plaintiff who resides in California gets a strong presumption in favor of its choice, because the forum is presumed convenient and the state has an interest in giving its residents a place to seek redress. A plaintiff from another country gets less deference. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 754-755.) On the other side, Stangvik treats a corporate defendant's state of incorporation and principal place of business as presumptively a convenient forum. That presumption is not conclusive and can be overcome by evidence that the other jurisdiction is more convenient.
A plaintiff from another state falls in between. One Court of Appeal decision held that such a plaintiff receives due deference, not a strong presumption, and disagreed with an earlier decision that gave every United States plaintiff's choice great weight. (National Football League v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902.) The point is not settled.
Consider a California importer sued here by an overseas supplier on a contract negotiated, signed, and performed abroad. The plaintiff's choice of California earns less deference, but the importer is at home here, which counts against the motion. A motion between two out-of-state companies over an out-of-state contract, with no California witness, is stronger.
Stay or dismissal, and the conditions attached
A stay leaves the California case on file while the dispute is tried elsewhere. A dismissal ends it. The difference matters most to a plaintiff that resides in California. The older rule barred dismissal of a California resident's action except in extraordinary circumstances. A 1986 amendment to section 410.30 lifted that bar, and Stangvik was decided while it was in force. The amendment expired on January 1, 1992. Court of Appeal decisions since then hold that the older rule applies again, so a resident's action may ordinarily be stayed but not dismissed.
The National Football League decision held that a defendant seeking only a stay against a nonresident plaintiff need not prove that California is a seriously inconvenient forum. That court disagreed with other Court of Appeal decisions on the point, so the standard is unsettled.
The statute allows any conditions that are just. The stipulations in Stangvik are examples: submitting to jurisdiction in the other forum and tolling the statute of limitations while the California actions were pending.
If you are the defendant asking for the move
The defendant has the burden, so the motion needs evidence. Identify each witness by role and location and say what the testimony concerns. Show where the documents are. Establish by declaration that the other forum can hear the claim, and offer the stipulations that remove doubt. A company with no real connection to the state should also evaluate a motion to quash.
If you are the plaintiff resisting it
If the claim would be time-barred or the defendant unreachable in the other forum, say so with evidence, and hold the defendant to a stipulation. Then answer the convenience showing witness by witness. Document your own California residence and the defendant's presence here. If the court is inclined to grant the motion, ask for a stay with conditions in place of a dismissal. Our pages on international business disputes and on a California company sued in another state cover the related problems.
What to bring to the first meeting
- The complaint and proof of service, with dates.
- The contract and the communications showing where it was negotiated, signed, and performed.
- A list of witnesses and where each one lives and works.
- Where the documents and other evidence are kept.
- Each party's state or country of organization and principal office.
- Any deadline or pending case in the other forum.
Frequently asked questions
We were sued in California over a deal negotiated and performed overseas. Can the case be sent to the other country?
It can be, on a forum non conveniens motion under California Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30. You must show that the other country's courts can hear the claim and enter a valid judgment against you, and that the private and public interest factors favor trial there. Expect to stipulate to jurisdiction there and to waive a limitations defense.
Our company is based in California, but everything in this dispute happened in another state. Does our address here keep the case in California?
Not necessarily, but it counts against the motion. The California Supreme Court has said that a corporate defendant's state of incorporation and principal place of business is presumptively a convenient forum. The presumption can be overcome with evidence that the witnesses, records, and events are elsewhere and that trial there would be more convenient.
What is forum non conveniens?
It is a doctrine under which a court that has jurisdiction declines to hear a case because another forum is more appropriate. California's version is in Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, which directs the court to stay or dismiss an action when substantial justice requires that it be heard outside the state.
Who has the burden on a forum non conveniens motion in California?
The defendant, as the moving party. Under the California Supreme Court's two-step test, the defendant must show that a suitable alternative forum exists and that the balance of private and public interests favors it. The weighing of those interests is discretionary, and an appellate court gives the trial judge substantial deference on it.
Will a California court dismiss a case filed by a California resident?
Ordinarily not. A California resident's choice of forum carries a strong presumption, and Court of Appeal decisions hold that a resident's action may not be dismissed on this ground except in extraordinary circumstances. A statutory amendment that had allowed dismissal expired on January 1, 1992. The court may still stay the resident's action while the dispute is tried in the other forum.
Talk to a California business litigation attorney
If your company was sued in California over events somewhere else, or a defendant is trying to move your case away, call (909) 235-6116 or contact us online. Kolmogorov Law, P.C. is a business litigation firm in Irvine, California. See also our civil litigation page.
This page provides general information about California law and is not legal advice. Outcomes depend on the facts about the parties, the witnesses, the other forum, and the court.