Opinion ID: 1860646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Plaintiff's Forum Should Rarely Be Disturbed

Text: ¶ 37. This factor is discussed in Tircuit: While, unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the choice of a plaintiff who is a resident of the forum should rarely be disturbed, deference to the plaintiff is less compelling when the plaintiff is a non-resident. There is no reason to assume a non-resident plaintiff will choose a foreign forum for purposes of convenience. Id. at 882. ¶ 38. In the case below, Plaintiff Travis is a non-resident, and thus her choice is less compelling. However, this Court recognized that while a non-resident plaintiff's choice of venue may receive less deference, this does not mean that their choice is given no deference. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 728 So.2d 573, 576 (Miss.1999). The factors under the forum non conveniens test do not weigh against Plaintiff's venue choice. Thus, it is appropriate to give some deference to Plaintiff Travis's choice of Marshall County. We find that the trial court properly denied ICRR's Motion to Dismiss based on forum non conveniens.