Thirty-nine Canadians filed suit in Rhode Island against American companies licensed to do business there. The suits alleged exposure to asbestos in Canada, and the plaintiffs had no connection in any way to Rhode Island. The issue in this appeal was whether Rhode Island would recognize the standard doctrine of forum non conveniens, that is, that the forum is simply not well suited to hear the case because neither the parties, witnesses nor other elements necessary to the trial are in Rhode Island.
The NAM joined with 5 other organizations asking the court to recognize the doctrine. It is a common law doctrine designed to provide fundamental fairness and sensible and effective judicial administration, and is particularly important to prevent nonresidents from forum shopping for jurisdictions with favorable law, procedures or juries. This is particularly true for foreign disputes, since American courts, unlike most foreign jurisdictions, permit the use of jury trials and contingency fees, do not impose a loser-pays rule, and allow more extensive discovery.
On May 9, 2008, the Rhode Island Supreme Court agreed that the case should be dismissed under the forum non conveniens doctrine, which it ruled was part of the state's "jurisprudential landscape." In a footnote, the court thanked the NAM and other amicus parties for their "helpful" briefs.
The court adopted a two-pronged test that takes into consideration the adequacy of an alternative forum if the case is dismissed in Rhode Island, and a balancing of private and public interests affected by the litigation. The opinion allows a case to be dismissed even if the alternative forum provides fewer remedies or other advantages for the plaintiff, and the court gave less weight to a plaintiff's choice of forum when it is motivated by forum-shopping objectives. A court may also consider the extent to which its own judicial system will be burdened by the inappropriate forum shopping.