Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-538 — NE Code / Chapter 25 / Section 25-538
View Statute 25-538
Status: in_force

When the court finds that in the interest of substantial justice the action should be heard in another forum, the court may stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.

Laws 1967, c. 143, § 4, p. 439.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss case on basis of forum non conveniens. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Kight, 246 Neb. 619, 522 N.W.2d 155 (1994).

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to dismiss case on basis of forum non conveniens. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Kight, 246 Neb. 619, 522 N.W.2d 155 (1994).

The district court considered the public interest factors of forum non conveniens and dismissed the plaintiff's action, concluding that New York was a better forum. However, the district court failed to also consider the unique circumstances of the case, namely, that a New York court had already dismissed the plaintiff's case because it determined that the case should be heard in Nebraska pursuant to a forum selection clause in the parties' contract; the New York court did not address the public interest factors of forum non conveniens in its decision. Given the unique circumstances, rather than dismissing the action, the district court should have stayed the action on the condition that the case is filed in and accepted by the New York courts. Milmar Food Group II v. Applied Underwriters, 29 Neb. App. 714, 958 N.W.2d 920 (2021).

The district court considered the public interest factors of forum non conveniens and dismissed the plaintiff's action, concluding that New York was a better forum. However, the district court failed to also consider the unique circumstances of the case, namely, that a New York court had already dismissed the plaintiff's case because it determined that the case should be heard in Nebraska pursuant to a forum selection clause in the parties' contract; the New York court did not address the public interest factors of forum non conveniens in its decision. Given the unique circumstances, rather than dismissing the action, the district court should have stayed the action on the condition that the case is filed in and accepted by the New York courts. Milmar Food Group II v. Applied Underwriters, 29 Neb. App. 714, 958 N.W.2d 920 (2021).

Where diverse parties to a contract have agreed in writing that the defendant will assume the burden of litigating an action on the contract in the plaintiff's home jurisdiction, and where there is no evidence of fraud or duress or any other action by the plaintiff that would retroactively render void the contractual forum selection, this section does not authorize a court to arbitrarily amend the contract by nullifying the forum selection clause and reassigning to the plaintiff the burden of litigating an action on the contract in a foreign jurisdiction. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Walker, 1 Neb. App. 882, 510 N.W.2d 439 (1993).

Where diverse parties to a contract have agreed in writing that the defendant will assume the burden of litigating an action on the contract in the plaintiff's home jurisdiction, and where there is no evidence of fraud or duress or any other action by the plaintiff that would retroactively render void the contractual forum selection, this section does not authorize a court to arbitrarily amend the contract by nullifying the forum selection clause and reassigning to the plaintiff the burden of litigating an action on the contract in a foreign jurisdiction. Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Walker, 1 Neb. App. 882, 510 N.W.2d 439 (1993).