Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert
330 U.S. 501 (1947)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal district court has the inherent discretionary power to dismiss a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens if it finds that the chosen forum is seriously inconvenient and that another adequate and more convenient forum exists.
Facts:
- Gilbert, a resident of Lynchburg, Virginia, operated a public warehouse in that city.
- Gulf Oil Corp., a Pennsylvania corporation qualified to do business in both Virginia and New York, was delivering gasoline to Gilbert's warehouse tanks.
- Gilbert alleged that Gulf Oil's careless handling of the gasoline delivery caused a massive explosion and fire.
- The fire consumed the warehouse building, destroyed merchandise belonging to Gilbert and his customers, and caused a loss of business and profits.
- All of the events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Lynchburg, Virginia.
- Nearly all of the potential witnesses, including Gilbert, Gulf Oil's employees involved, firemen, and approximately 350 customers, resided in or near Lynchburg, Virginia.
Procedural Posture:
- Gilbert sued Gulf Oil Corp. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a federal trial court, basing jurisdiction on diversity of citizenship.
- Gulf Oil Corp. filed a motion to dismiss the action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
- The District Court granted Gulf Oil's motion and dismissed the case.
- Gilbert, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal, holding that the lower court had abused its discretion.
- Gulf Oil Corp., as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States to review the Circuit Court's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court have the inherent power to dismiss a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens when jurisdiction and venue are statutorily proper?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes. A federal district court has the inherent power to dismiss a case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The principle of forum non conveniens allows a court to resist imposition upon its jurisdiction even when jurisdiction is authorized by a general venue statute. The doctrine presupposes that there are at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to process and it provides criteria for the court to choose between them. To guide this discretion, courts must balance private and public interest factors. Private interests include the relative ease of access to sources of proof, availability of compulsory process for unwilling witnesses, the cost of attendance for willing witnesses, and the possibility of viewing the premises. Public interests include reducing administrative difficulties for congested courts, minimizing the burden of jury duty on a community with no relation to the litigation, and the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home. In this case, the balance of these factors overwhelmingly favors trial in Virginia, as all events, witnesses, and evidence are located there, and the plaintiff offered no compelling reason for bringing the suit in New York.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Black
No. A federal district court, once satisfied that jurisdiction and venue requirements have been met, cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction in a common law action for money damages. The statutes conferring jurisdiction on federal courts are a mandate, not an invitation for discretionary refusal. The doctrine of forum non conveniens has historically been limited to the extraordinary powers of admiralty and equity courts, not actions at law. By judicially creating this power for common law cases, the Court is legislating from the bench, a role that belongs to Congress. This new rule will clutter the courts with preliminary trials on the factual question of convenience, creating uncertainty, delay, and potential hardship for plaintiffs who may see their claims barred by statutes of limitation while the forum issue is litigated.
Analysis:
This landmark decision firmly established the doctrine of forum non conveniens within federal civil procedure for diversity jurisdiction cases. It armed federal judges with a discretionary tool to prevent forum shopping and manage their dockets by dismissing cases that, despite proper jurisdiction and venue, would be more justly and efficiently tried elsewhere. The multi-factor balancing test created in this case became the foundational framework for analyzing convenience, influencing not only future dismissals but also the subsequent enactment of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which allows for the transfer, rather than dismissal, of cases to a more convenient federal forum.
Unlock the full brief for Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert