Court Opinion

ID: 9740227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:30:25.484796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.014855
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that a trial court must find "hardship”, or even "extreme hardship”, before choosing to decline jurisdiction based on the principle of forum non conveniens.
The factors which were enumerated in Cray v General Motors Corp, 389 Mich 382; 207 NW2d 393; 59 ALR3d 127 (1973), have to do with the ease, expense, and expedition of the trial. These factors amount to a showing of hardship, so no additional factor of hardship need be considered. It is anomalous to conclude that the movant has satisfactorily demonstrated all of the Cray factors, *204but cannot prevail unless it makes an independent showing of "hardship”.
In the instant case, the trial judge made careful findings of fact on each of the factors enumerated in Cray, supra, and said that defendant had made an adequate showing of expense and inconvenience to witnesses. His only reason for denying defendant’s motion was the following:
"* * * [B]ecause removal should only be where there is a showing of extreme hardship on the part of the defendant — and I am making that declaration so you can test if — and that for the convenience of the parties and the cause it would be. more proper to have the case heard in another jurisdiction.”
It seems to me that this conclusion was contrary to the policy which was announced in Cray, supra. I would therefore reverse.