Court Opinion

ID: 9733984
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:22:15.371689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:44.968557
License: Public Domain

FERREN, Associate Judge,
with whom Associate Judge BELSON and Associate Judge NEBEKER, Retired, join, concurring:
I join in the per curiam opinion, reflecting the majority view at the time of the judgment in this case, Jenkins v. Smith, 499 A.2d 128 (D.C.1985) (per curiam) (en banc), that the holding in Frost v. Peoples Drug Store, Inc., 327 A.2d 810 (D.C.1974), should remain the law of this jurisdiction. I also join in Part I of Judge Terry’s opinion.
I write separately for one reason: to express my disagreement with Judge Terry’s statement, in Part II, that to the extent the denial of a forum non conveniens motion is reversible error, “the error is surely remediable on appeal after a final judgment, just as the denial of a motion to dismiss on any other ground (e.g., lack of personal or subject-matter jurisdiction) is remediable.” Post at 1372. Once there has been a trial in an inconvenient forum, the inconvenience as such can never be remedied. In any event, I doubt that a reviewing court would reverse a meritorious decision and force a new trial simply *1372because a forum, having jurisdiction, had been inconvenient.
Perhaps inconvenience should not be a ground for dismissal, without prejudice, of a suit over which a court has personal and subject matter jurisdiction. But, as long as there is such a ground, I see only two choices: either say, straightforwardly, that there shall be no appellate remedy for an erroneous denial of such a motion — in effect, Judge Terry’s and his colleagues’ position — or preserve the right of appeal. I prefer the latter alternative.
II