Miller v. Boston Scientific Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• affording plaintiffs choice of forum a “small amount of deference” where there was evidence crucial to plaintiffs claim in New Jersey but otherwise “scant evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs connection to the state of New Jersey”
• “The forum choice of a plaintiff suing in his home state is entitled to a high degree of deference . . . .”
• “[T]his Court did not imply in Nieminen that a forum non conveniens motion would necessarily fail in the absence of such evidence.”
• “Where there is a legitimate dispute concerning the adequacy of the foreign remedy, a defendant seeking a forum non conveniens dismissal must generally provide record evidence indicating that the plaintiff could obtain proper redress in the alternative forum.” (emphasis added)
• “As previously noted, the court’s role in ascertaining the adequacy of the proposed alternative forum is a limited one, and is generally satisfied by a finding of the defendant’s amenability to process and the availability of some remedy in the foreign jurisdiction.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).