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 Kentucky, the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens allows courts to dismiss a case if it determines that the chosen forum is inconvenient for the parties involved, even if the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and practicality in litigation. While a Kentucky resident plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, it is not absolute. The court will consider both private and public interest factors to decide whether the case should be dismissed in favor of another jurisdiction that has a more significant connection to the matter at hand. Factors that may influence the court's decision include the location of evidence, the convenience of witnesses, the burden on the court system, and the interests of justice. If a defendant can show that these factors strongly favor another forum, the court may dismiss the case despite the plaintiff's preference.