Courts apply the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens when necessary to prevent the imposition of an inconvenient jurisdiction on a litigant. A trial court may, in its discretion, dismiss a case even when contacts between the defendant and the forum state exist that may confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, if the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.

A resident plaintiff’s forum choice deserves deference, all else being more or less equal, but that choice does not foreclose a defendant from demonstrating that the private and public interest factors favor dismissal when another forum’s interests predominate.

In Florida, the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it is determined that another jurisdiction is more appropriate for the trial, even if the Florida court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and convenience for the parties involved. When a plaintiff residing in Florida chooses a forum, the court generally respects this choice. However, the plaintiff's preference can be overridden if the defendant can show that both private and public interest factors strongly favor a trial in a different forum. Private interest factors might include the location of evidence or witnesses, while public interest factors could involve the administrative burden on Florida courts or the interest of another jurisdiction in deciding the case. The court will weigh these factors and may dismiss the case if it finds that the connection to Florida is insufficient and another forum has a more significant interest in the matter.