Oklahoma § 12-140.3 Forum non conveniens – Considerations in motions to

Oklahoma Statutes

§ 12-140.3 — Forum non conveniens – Considerations in motions to

Oklahoma § 12-140.3

Title 12Civil Procedure

This text of Oklahoma § 12-140.3 (Forum non conveniens – Considerations in motions to) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Okla. Stat. tit. 12, § 12-140.3 (2026).

Text

stay, transfer or dismiss.

A.If the court, upon motion by a party or on the court's own motion, finds that, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, an action would be more properly heard in another forum either in this state or outside this state, the court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and shall stay, transfer or dismiss the action.

B.In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, transfer or dismiss an action pursuant to this section, the court shall consider: 1. Whether an alternate forum exists in which the action may be tried; 2. Whether the alternate forum provides an adequate remedy; 3. Whether maintenance of the action in the court in which the case is filed would work a substantial injustice to the

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

stay, transfer or dismiss. A. If the court, upon motion by a party or on the court's own motion, finds that, in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties, an action would be more properly heard in another forum either in this state or outside this state, the court shall decline to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrine of forum non conveniens and shall stay, transfer or dismiss the action. B. In determining whether to grant a motion to stay, transfer or dismiss an action pursuant to this section, the court shall consider: 1. Whether an alternate forum exists in which the action may be tried; 2. Whether the alternate forum provides an adequate remedy; 3. Whether maintenance of the action in the court in which the case is filed would work a substantial injustice to the moving party; 4. Whether the alternate forum can exercise jurisdiction over all the defendants properly joined in the action of the plaintiff; 5. Whether the balance of the private interests of the parties and the public interest of the state predominate in favor of the action being brought in an alternate forum; and 6. Whether the stay, transfer or dismissal would prevent unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation.

Legislative History

Added by Laws 2013, 1st Ex. Sess., c. 1, § 2, emerg. eff. Sept. 10, 2013. NOTE: Text formerly resided under repealed Title 12, § 140.2, which was derived from Laws 2009, c. 228, § 3, which was held unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in the case of Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 2013 OK 37, 302 P.2d 789 (Okla. 2013).