Court Opinion

ID: 9677926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:05:46.784337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:00.102012
License: Public Domain

CAVANAGH, J.
(concurring). I concur with the majority opinion in all respects, but would emphasize that in determining whether Michigan is a reasonably convenient place for the trial, the trial court should only use *231the forum non conveniens analysis as a useful guide and not as a conclusive framework to determine what is “reasonably convenient.” See Cray v Gen Motors Corp, 389 Mich 382, 395-396; 207 NW2d 393 (1973). Significant to bear in mind with regard to the differences in the analyses are that (1) the forum non conveniens doctrine is a common-law discretionary doctrine, not a statutory directive; (2) MCL 600.745(2) applies in instances in which the parties agreed by contract to submit any disputes to this state’s jurisdiction while the forum non conveniens doctrine applies in instances in which the plaintiff unilaterally selected the forum; (3) when the forum non conveniens doctrine is applicable, two jurisdictions are available, but that may not be true in instances in which MCL 600.745(2) is applicable; and (4) the standard to consider in a forum non conveniens analysis is whether the forum is inconvenient, but the standard under MCL 600.745(2) is whether the forum is “reasonably convenient,” an arguably less burdensome standard.