Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc.

Motions to dismiss an action for forum non conveniens must satisfy a two-step process: (1) there must be an adequate alternative forum, and (2) the private and public interests must weigh heavily in favor of the alternative forum to meet "the ends of justice."

Evergreen sought review of the Court of Appeal’s denial of a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens on the grounds the trial court misapplied the doctrine. In Oregon, courts considering a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens should apply a two-step analysis: (1) the court must consider whether there is an adequate alternative forum in which to try the action, and (2) the court must consider relevant private and public interests, to determine whether those interests weigh so heavily in favor of the alternative forum that allowing the case would be “contrary to the ends of justice.” A court considering a defendants motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens must accept as true all well pleaded facts alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint and give plaintiff the benefit of all favorable inferences. The trial court did not conduct a sufficient factual inquiry into the private and public interests affected; the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The judgment of the circuit court is vacated, and the case is remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings.