Opinion ID: 1343045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Congestion of the Courts' Dockets

Text: The first public interest to consider under the Gilbert matrix is  `the relative congestion of the respective courts' dockets[.]'  Tsapis, 184 W.Va. at 234, 400 S.E.2d at 242. (Citations omitted). In its FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS BASED UPON THE DOCTRINE OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS entered on September 28, 1993 (final order), the circuit court concluded that due to its already congested docket and the relatively uncongested docket of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, this public interest favors the dismissal of this action based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens. [10] In their brief, the defendants add that the judge for the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan has indicated to Commercial Union's and Cannelton's counsel that he is ready and willing to proceed with the case. In addition, they claim the Circuit Court of Chippewa County is ready to proceed. Cannelton states that the judge for the district court only has represented that he was ready to proceed on the action pending before him, not Commercial Unions' comprehensive action. Cannelton responds to the circuit court's conclusion and the argument by the defendants by stating that the Circuit Court of Kanawha County has ways to expeditiously handle the case. Primarily, Cannelton argues that discovery matters may be referred to a commissioner or master, pursuant to Rule 16(c)(6) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure, [11] and former circuit court judges and former justices of this Court may be assigned duties as needed and as feasible toward the objective of reducing caseloads and providing speedier trials to litigants throughout the state[.] W.Va.Code, 51-9-10 (1991). [12] Although we agree with Cannelton that there are avenues the circuit court can take to make the case more efficient, this case still will consume a tremendous amount of the circuit court's energy and resources. Therefore, after reviewing the circuit court's conclusion and the defendants' and the plaintiff's arguments, we find the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in deciding this public interest favors a Michigan forum. 2.