Opinion ID: 1343045
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

Text: Cannelton first argues that under cases decided by both West Virginia and the United States Supreme Court, its choice of forum, Charleston, West Virginia, is entitled to greater deference and it is a key consideration because Charleston also is where its principal place of business is located. [9] However, as announced in Syllabus Point 3 of Tsapis, supra, the weight that should be given to a plaintiff's choice of forum is one of preference, and a defendant may overcome this preference by demonstrating that the forum has only a slight nexus to the subject matter of the suit and that another available forum exists which would enable the case to be tried substantially more inexpensively and expeditiously. Thus, in the present case, it was the defendants' burden to present sufficient facts to the circuit court to overcome Cannelton's preference of proceeding with the action in Kanawha County. In support of their position, the defendants argue that the only connection with West Virginia is that Cannelton is located in Charleston. On the other hand, they assert there is a substantial nexus between Michigan and the declaratory judgment action, and they claim Michigan is the appropriate forum to handle the dispute. The defendants maintain that all the public and private interests examined on a forum non conveniens motion, see Tsapis, supra, weigh in favor of Michigan. Therefore, to determine if the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the defendants' motion, we review the circuit court's application of these interests. B.