Forum shopping is a colloquial term for the practice of traitors whose legal cases are heard in court deemed most likely to provide favorable judgments. Some jurisdictions, for example, are known as "plaintiff-friendly" and hence have attracted litigation even when there is little or no relationship between legal issues and jurisdiction in which they will be prosecuted.
Examples include the appeal of foreigners litigating to the United States due to the wide acceptance of personal jurisdiction and favorable litigation climate, and the United Kingdom for strict defamation laws and generous divorce settlements.
This term has been adopted in a broader context for repeated activities seeking a place or listener who is willing to problem, complaint or action, until found.
Video Forum shopping
Related terms
When a case is brought to court, the court decides whether the court has personal jurisdiction and subject, and if so, is it the forum or the most appropriate place. Under the doctrine of the non conveniens forum , Latin for "inappropriate forums", judges have the discretion to transfer a case if the chosen court is not the easiest. If a court in two countries will accept civil jurisdiction, the plaintiff should be able to demonstrate that fairness requires the court to take place in the forum advocated by the plaintiff.
The Plaintiff may have chosen one forum for the following reasons:
- This forum is not convenient for the defendant or his witnesses. There may be a travel, health, or visa issue or entry permit.
- The court, judge, or law will most likely support the plaintiff's case.
The defendant may take the following actions to seek a change of place:
- The defendant may petition the forum court that they must reject jurisdiction and petition to transfer the case to a forum that is allegedly more comfortable; or
- If a case has been filed to another jurisdiction, the defendant may seek redress against the plaintiff in the second country, requiring the plaintiff to stop the action in the first forum and instead submit the case to hear in this allegedly more convenient forum.
In either case, the first step is to determine whether the first example forum is a natural forum, or whether the forum has the closest relationship to the action and the parties. The court decides whether there is another more appropriate forum under the doctrine of trust. The present forum courts must respect the right of foreign courts to take jurisdiction. The court must balance the interests of the parties, as there is injustice not only when plaintiffs are allowed to pursue actions in forums that are inconvenient for the defendant, but also when the plaintiff is not allowed to conduct the hearing on time.
Generally, the court will not grant a petition to transfer or order if the grant unfairly will eliminate the plaintiff's gain in the first forum. However, a real and substantial relation between place and cause of action must exist to give defendants some protection against being pursued in jurisdictions that have little or no connection with the transaction or the parties.
If an alternative court concludes that other courts have taken good jurisdiction without considering whether an alternative forum is available or has reached a plausibly vague conclusion about the benefits, then an order will sometimes be a reasonable answer. If, on the other hand, an alternative court has reasonably concluded that no more convenient forum is available, then respect requires it to respect court decisions that have taken jurisdiction and refused applications for orders and transfers. In cases where there is a plausible argument in favor of both courts, the court in the second place should not arbitrarily claim a better right to decide both jurisdictions. In many cases, foreign court compliance with principles similar to those applied in the second place court will be clear; if a foreign court has adopted it, then the second court must reject the assistance.
This term has been adopted in a broader context for repeated activities seeking a place or listener who is willing to problem, complaint or action, until found.
US District Court judges have stated that in reality, any plaintiff who filed a lawsuit was involved in forum shopping when he chose a place to file a lawsuit. International family lawyers work to assist their clients in the process.
Maps Forum shopping
Child custody
In one case, the court explicitly acknowledged that the plaintiff had chosen to move to the state to take advantage of the liberal divorce laws in the state. The court found that it was very appropriate and did not justify the residence or dismissal of the case.
On the other hand, forum spending is generally considered highly inappropriate when it is intended to secure more sympathetic forums in child custody cases. Indeed, the court has found that the Hague Abduction Convention was designed to prevent parents from engaging in international forum spending in cases of detention. In particular, the Hague Convention seeks to prevent situations where parents are dissatisfied with the current custodial arrangements to flee with children to other countries to re-litigate detention services and to obtain better detention orders.
Nevertheless, there may be a best interest for a child to remove a child from a forum that does not apply the best interest test in child custody cases to a forum that has "better" laws and practices in such cases.
"There is often a legal vacuum that encourages one parent to take children from another, and to block children from accessing other parents," Morley said. "It does not only hurt foreign parents [if Chinese partners take the child to China], it also hurts Chinese parents who live in China because if other parents take their child to a foreign country from China, the court in the foreign country can not to order the return of a child to China under the terms of the convention. "
United States
The United States has attracted foreign prosecutors who want to take advantage of cheaper awards of damage and benefits, extensive discovery rules, and contingent cost systems. Additionally, the Foreign Trade Antitrust Enforcement Act, Tortla's Tortlaid Act, and many state product liability laws create legal rights that are often absent in other jurisdictions.
By the plaintiff
A plaintiff can often choose to file his case in one of several jurisdictions by selecting a federal rather than a local jurisdiction, local rather than federal jurisdiction, or one of several geographic locations. The defendant in a civil case may be sued in the jurisdiction where he lives or where the cause of the action occurred. In the United States, the district court for the eastern district of Texas in Marshall, Texas, has become a popular forum for patent lawsuits, since it benefited 78% of the plaintiffs of the time; the national average is 59%.
By a civilian defendant
A defendant may use various procedures or theories to remove the case from the court where the plaintiff initially submitted it. The defendant may request the removal of the jurisdiction of the federal court to file an exit claim from the state court, requesting a change of venue because the case is brought to court not eligible within the jurisdiction, and moves for the non conveniens forum on the ground that the case taken to an inappropriate forum based on the location of the parties or evidence.
In criminal case
Shopping forums are also occurring, albeit less frequently, in US federal criminal trials, primarily because certain districts and circuits are widely perceived to benefit the government in certain problems or trials. It is often claimed that a US federal court on alleged terrorists is a shopping forum.
The criminal defendants have less power to change the forums in which cases against them have been filed. Generally, they can only do so where they can show that localized fame or publicity makes it unlikely that an impartial jury can be elected in the district where the allegations are filed.
Attempt to prevent forum spending
The court may object to the shopping forum for several reasons. A fair resolution of a case that relies on technical differences from one jurisdiction to the next will offend justice, and more practically, a judge may fear that having a favorable forum reputation for a certain type of plaintiff will delay the dispensation of justice on time. in other cases by increasing their workload.
Under Erie's doctrine, federal courts who hear cases under the jurisdiction of diversity must apply the law of the country in which the court is sitting. Under the choice of law, the law of the country that has the nearest nexus for this case is applied.
Contracting parties may seek to prevent forum spending by including a forum selection clause or a choice of legal clauses in their contract. Such clauses are now generally enforced by the courts.
Philippines
Shopping forums are considered serious violations that can be committed by complainants. The law in the Philippines explicitly prohibits the filing of more than one case for the same cause in any forum or court of law so that the court will not be clogged by complaints of persons who may file more than one complaint in an attempt to obtain a favorable decision in either of the many cases submitted.
England and Wales
In England and Wales law, defamation laws can be considered more favorable to plaintiffs than in other jurisdictions, leading to a form of forum shopping that is sometimes called "defamation" or "defamation".
In The Atlantic Star [1973] QB 364 at 381-382, Lord Denning MR noted:
You can call it "forum shopping" if you like, but if the forum is UK, this is a great place to shop, both for the quality of goods and the speed of service.
See also
- Shopping sanctuary
- Shopping jurisdiction
- "Race to the courthouse"
- Tort reform in the United States
- Libel tourism
- International kidnapping
References
External links
- Shopping forums in Cases of US Terrorism and "Sniper DC" Case
- Shop Forums in Patent and Anti-Monopoly Cases (PDF)
- Rethink Shopping Forums in Cyberspace by Kimberly A. Moore
- Shopping Forums in Patent Case: Does Geography Choice Affect Innovation? by Kimberly A. Moore
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments