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 Michigan, the courts recognize the equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a trial court to dismiss a case if it determines that the forum is inconvenient for the parties involved, despite having jurisdiction over the defendant. This doctrine is applied to ensure fairness and practicality in litigation. While a Michigan resident plaintiff's choice of forum is generally given deference, this preference does not prevent a defendant from arguing that the case should be dismissed in favor of another jurisdiction. The court will consider both private and public interest factors in making its decision. Private interest factors include the convenience of the parties, the ease of access to evidence, and other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Public interest factors involve the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion, the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home, and the familiarity of the court with the applicable law. If the court finds that these factors strongly favor another forum, it may dismiss the case even if the defendant has sufficient contacts with Michigan to otherwise allow the court to exercise personal jurisdiction.