SINOCHEM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. v. MALAYSIA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP.

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
422 OCTOBER TERM, 2006
Syllabus
SINOCHEM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD. v. MALAYSIA
INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP.
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the third circuit
No. 06–102. Argued January 9, 2007—Decided March 5, 2007
A contract between petitioner (Sinochem), a Chinese state-owned im
porter, and a domestic corporation not a party here (Triorient) provided
that Sinochem would purchase steel coils and that Triorient would
be paid under a letter of credit by producing a valid bill of lading certify
ing that the coils had been loaded for shipment to China on or before
April 30, 2003. Triorient subchartered a vessel owned by respondent
(Malaysia International), a Malaysian company, to transport the coils,
and hired a stevedoring company to load the coils in Philadelphia. A
bill of lading, dated April 30, 2003, triggered payment under the letter
of credit. Sinochem petitioned a Chinese admiralty court for preserva
tion of a maritime claim against Malaysia International and arrest of
the vessel, alleging that the Malaysian company had falsely backdated
the bill of lading. The Chinese court ordered the ship arrested, and
Sinochem timely filed a complaint in that tribunal. The Chinese admi
ralty court rejected Malaysia International’s jurisdictional objections to
Sinochem’s complaint, and that ruling was affirmed on appeal.
Shortly after the Chinese admiralty court ordered the vessel’s arrest,
Malaysia International filed this action in a United States District
Court, asserting that Sinochem’s preservation petition to the Chinese
court contained misrepresentations, and seeking compensation for losses
sustained due to the ship’s arrest. Sinochem moved to dismiss on sev
eral grounds, including lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction
and the doctrine of forum non conveniens, under which a federal dis
trict court may dismiss an action if a court abroad is the more appro
priate and convenient forum for adjudicating the controversy. The Dis
trict Court determined it had subject-matter jurisdiction over the cause,
concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction over Sinochem under Pennsyl
vania law, conjectured that limited discovery might reveal that it had
personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), but
dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds, finding that the case could
be adjudicated adequately and more conveniently in the Chinese courts.
Agreeing that there was subject-matter jurisdiction and that personal
jurisdiction could not be resolved sans discovery, the Third Circuit panel

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
423 Cite as: 549 U. S. 422 (2007)
Syllabus
held that the District Court could not dismiss the case under the forum
non conveniens doctrine unless and until it determined definitively that
it had both subject-matter and personal jurisdiction.
Held: A district court has discretion to respond at once to a defendant’s
forum non conveniens plea, and need not take up first any other thresh
old objection. In particular, a court need not resolve whether it has
authority to adjudicate the cause (subject-matter jurisdiction) or per
sonal jurisdiction over the defendant if it determines that, in any event,
a foreign tribunal is the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case.
Pp. 429–436.
(a) A federal court has discretion to dismiss on forum non conveniens
grounds “when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear [the] case,
and . . . trial in the chosen forum would establish . . . oppressiveness
and vexation to a defendant . . . out of all proportion to plaintiff ’s con
venience, or . . . the chosen forum [is] inappropriate because of consid
erations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal problems.”
American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U. S. 443, 447–448. Such a dis
missal reflects a court’s assessment of a “range of considerations, most
notably the convenience to the parties and the practical difficulties that
can attend the adjudication of a dispute in a certain locality.” Quacken
bush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U. S. 706, 723. A defendant invoking
forum non conveniens ordinarily bears a heavy burden in opposing the
plaintiff ’s chosen forum. When the plaintiff ’s choice is not its home
forum, however, the presumption in the plaintiff ’s favor “applies with
less force,” for the assumption that the chosen forum is appropriate
is then “less reasonable.” Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U. S. 235,
255–256. Pp. 429–430.
(b) Although a federal court generally may not rule on the merits of
a case without first determining that it has jurisdiction over the cause
(subject-matter jurisdiction) and the parties (personal jurisdiction), see
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 93–102, there
is no mandatory sequencing of nonmerits issues, see Ruhrgas AG v.
Marathon Oil Co., 526 U. S. 574, 584. A court has leeway “to choose
among threshold grounds for denying audience to a case on the merits,”
id., at 585. Pp. 430–431.
(c) Forum non conveniens is a nonmerits ground for dismissal. See
American Dredging, 510 U. S., at 454; Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp.,
486 U. S. 140, 148. A district court therefore may dispose of an action
by a forum non conveniens dismissal, bypassing questions of subject
matter and personal jurisdiction, when considerations of convenience,
fairness, and judicial economy so warrant. Forum non conveniens, like
other threshold issues, may involve a brush with “factual and legal is

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
424 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L
SHIPPING CORP.
Syllabus
sues of the underlying dispute.” Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U. S.
517, 529. But the critical point, rendering a forum non conveniens
determination a nonmerits issue that can be determined before taking
up jurisdictional inquiries is this: Resolving a forum non conveniens
motion does not entail any assumption by the court of substantive law
declaring power. Statements in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S.
501, that “forum non conveniens can never apply if there is absence of
jurisdiction,” id., at 504, and that “[i]n all cases in which . . . forum non
conveniens comes into play, it presupposes at least two forums in which
the defendant is amenable to process,” id., at 506–507, account in large
part for the Third Circuit’s conclusion. Those statements draw their
meaning from the context in which they were embedded. Gulf Oil an
swered in the affirmative the question whether a court that had jurisdic
tion over the cause and the parties and was a proper venue could never
theless dismiss the action under the forum non conveniens doctrine.
Gulf Oil did not address the issue decided here: whether a federal court
can presume, rather than dispositively decide, its jurisdiction before dis
missing under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The quoted
statements, confined to the setting in which they were made, are no
hindrance to the decision reached today. The Third Circuit’s further
concern—that a court failing first to establish its jurisdiction could not
condition a forum non conveniens dismissal on the defendant’s waiver
of any statute of limitations defense or objection to the foreign forum’s
jurisdiction, and thus could not shield the plaintiff against a foreign tri
bunal’s refusal to entertain the suit—is not implicated on these facts.
Malaysia International faces no genuine risk that the more conven
ient forum will not take up the case. This Court therefore need not
decide whether a court conditioning a forum non conveniens dismissal
on the waiver of jurisdictional or limitations defenses in the foreign
forum must first determine its own authority to adjudicate the case.
Pp. 432–435.
(d) This is a textbook case for immediate forum non conveniens dis
missal. The District Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction presented an
issue of first impression in the Third Circuit, and was considered at some
length by the courts below. Discovery concerning personal jurisdiction
would have burdened Sinochem with expense and delay to scant pur
pose: The District Court inevitably would dismiss the case without
reaching the merits, given its well-considered forum non conveniens
appraisal. Judicial economy is disserved by continuing litigation in the
District Court given the proceedings long launched in China. And the
gravamen of Malaysia International’s complaint—misrepresentations to
the Chinese admiralty court in securing the vessel’s arrest in China—is
an issue best left for determination by the Chinese courts. If, as in the

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
425 Cite as: 549 U. S. 422 (2007)
Opinion of the Court
mine run of cases, a court can readily determine that it lacks jurisdiction
over the cause or the defendant, the proper course would be to dismiss
on that ground. But where subject-matter or personal jurisdiction is
difficult to determine, and forum non conveniens considerations weigh
heavily in favor of dismissal, the court properly takes the less burden
some course. Pp. 435–436.
436 F. 3d 349, reversed and remanded.
Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Gregory A. Castanias argued the cause for petitioner.
With him on the briefs was Stephen M. Hudspeth.
Douglas H. Hallward-Driemeier argued the cause for the
United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him
on the brief were Solicitor General Clement, Assistant At
torney General Keisler, Deputy Solicitor General Kneedler,
Michael S. Raab, and Stephanie R. Marcus.
Ann-Michele G. Higgins argued the cause for respondent.
With her on the brief were Joshua Bachrach and Kevin L.
McGee.
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the doctrine of forum non conveniens,
under which a federal district court may dismiss an action
on the ground that a court abroad is the more appropriate
and convenient forum for adjudicating the controversy. We
granted review to decide a question that has divided the
Courts of Appeals: “[w]hether a district court must first con
clusively establish [its own] jurisdiction before dismissing a
suit on the ground of forum non conveniens?” Pet. for
Cert. i. We hold that a district court has discretion to re
spond at once to a defendant’s forum non conveniens plea,
and need not take up first any other threshold objection. In
particular, a court need not resolve whether it has authority
to adjudicate the cause (subject-matter jurisdiction) or per
sonal jurisdiction over the defendant if it determines that, in
any event, a foreign tribunal is plainly the more suitable ar
biter of the merits of the case.

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
426 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L
SHIPPING CORP.
Opinion of the Court
I
The underlying controversy concerns alleged misrepresen
tations by a Chinese corporation to a Chinese admiralty
court resulting in the arrest of a Malaysian vessel in China.
In 2003, petitioner Sinochem International Company Ltd.
(Sinochem), a Chinese state-owned importer, contracted with
Triorient Trading, Inc. (Triorient), a domestic corporation
that is not a party to this suit, to purchase steel coils. Pur
suant to the agreement, Triorient would receive payment
under a letter of credit by producing a valid bill of lading
certifying that the coils had been loaded for shipment to
China on or before April 30, 2003. Memorandum and Order
of Feb. 27, 2004, No. Civ. A. 03–3771 (ED Pa.), App. to Pet.
for Cert. 48a–49a (hereinafter Feb. 27 Memo & Order).
Triorient subchartered a vessel owned by respondent Ma
laysia International Shipping Corporation (Malaysia Inter
national), a Malaysian company, to transport the coils to
China. Triorient then hired a stevedoring company to load
the steel coils at the Port of Philadelphia. A bill of lading,
dated April 30, 2003, triggered payment under the letter of
credit. Id., at 49a.
On June 8, 2003, Sinochem petitioned the Guangzhou Ad
miralty Court in China for interim relief, i. e., preservation
of a maritime claim against Malaysia International and ar
rest of the vessel that carried the steel coils to China. In
support of its petition, Sinochem alleged that the Malaysian
company had falsely backdated the bill of lading. The Chi
nese tribunal ordered the ship arrested the same day. Id.,
at 50a; App. in No. 04–1816 (CA3), pp. 56a–57a (Civil Ruling
of the Guangzhou Admiralty Court).
Thereafter, on July 2, 2003, Sinochem timely filed a com
plaint against Malaysia International and others in the
Guangzhou Admiralty Court. Sinochem’s complaint re
peated the allegation that the bill of lading had been falsified
resulting in unwarranted payment. Malaysia International
contested the jurisdiction of the Chinese tribunal. Feb. 27

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
Cite as: 549 U. S. 422 (2007) 427
Opinion of the Court
Memo & Order, at 50a; App. i n No. 04 –1816 (CA3),
pp. 52a– 53a (Civil Complaint in Guangzhou Admiralty
Court). The admiralty court rejected Malaysia Internation
al’s jurisdictional objection, and that ruling was affirmed
on appeal by the Guangdong Higher People’s Court. App.
16–23.
On June 23, 2003, shortly after the Chinese court ordered
the vessel’s arrest, Malaysia International filed the instant
action against Sinochem in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Malaysia Interna
tional asserted in its federal court pleading that Sinochem’s
preservation petition to the Guangzhou court negligently
misrepresented the “vessel’s fitness and suitability to load
its cargo.” Feb. 27 Memo & Order, at 50a (internal quo
tation marks omitted). As relief, Malaysia International
sought compensation for the loss it sustained due to the
delay caused by the ship’s arrest. Sinochem moved to dis
miss the suit on several grounds, including lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, forum non
conveniens, and international comity. App. in No. 04–1816
(CA3), pp. 14a–20a, 39a–40a.
The District Court first determined that it had subject
matter jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1333(1) (admiralty or
maritime jurisdiction). Feb. 27 Memo & Order, at 51a–54a.
The court next concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction
over Sinochem under Pennsylvania’s long-arm statute, 42 Pa.
Cons. Stat. § 5301 et seq. (2002). Nevertheless, the court
conjectured, limited discovery might reveal that Sinochem’s
national contacts sufficed to establish personal jurisdiction
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2). Feb. 27
Memo & Order, at 55a–63a. The court did not permit such
discovery, however, because it determined that the case
could be adjudicated adequately and more conveniently in
the Chinese courts. Id., at 63a–69a; Memorandum and
Order of Apr. 13, 2004, No. Civ. A. 03–3771 (ED Pa.), App.
to Pet. for Cert. 40a–47a (hereinafter Apr. 13 Memo &

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
428 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L
SHIPPING CORP.
Opinion of the Court
Order) (denial of Rule 59(e) motion). No significant inter
ests of the United States were involved, the court observed,
Feb. 27 Memo & Order, at 65a–67a; Apr. 13 Memo & Order,
at 44a–47a, and while the cargo had been loaded in Philadel
phia, the nub of the controversy was entirely foreign: The
dispute centered on the arrest of a foreign ship in foreign
waters pursuant to the order of a foreign court. Feb. 27
Memo & Order, at 67a. Given the proceedings ongoing in
China, and the absence of cause “to second-guess the author
ity of Chinese law or the competence of [Chinese] courts,”
the District Court granted the motion to dismiss under the
doctrine of forum non conveniens. Id., at 68a.
A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
agreed there was subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1333(1),
and that the question of personal jurisdiction could not be
resolved sans discovery. Although the court determined
that forum non conveniens is a nonmerits ground for dis
missal, the majority nevertheless held that the District
Court could not dismiss the case under the forum non conve
niens doctrine unless and until it determined definitively
that it had both subject-matter jurisdiction over the cause
and personal jurisdiction over the defendant. 436 F. 3d
349 (2006).
Judge Stapleton dissented. Requiring a district court to
conduct discovery on a jurisdictional question when it
“rightly regards [the forum] as inappropriate,” he main
tained, “subverts a primary purpose of ” the forum non con
veniens doctrine: “protect[ing] a defendant from . . . substan
tial and unnecessary effort and expense.” Id., at 368. The
“court makes no assumption of law declaring power,” Judge
Stapleton observed, “when it decides not to exercise what
ever jurisdiction it may have.” Id., at 370 (quoting Ruhrgas
AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U. S. 574, 584 (1999), in turn
quoting In re Papandreou, 139 F. 3d 247, 255 (CADC 1998)).
We granted certiorari, 548 U. S. 942 (2006), to resolve a
conflict among the Circuits on whether forum non conve

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
429 Cite as: 549 U. S. 422 (2007)
Opinion of the Court
niens can be decided prior to matters of jurisdiction. Com
pare 436 F. 3d, at 361–364 (case below); Dominguez-Cota v.
Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 396 F. 3d 650, 652–654 (CA5 2005)
(per curiam) ( jurisdictional issues must be resolved in ad
vance of a forum non conveniens ruling), with Intec USA,
LLC v. Engle, 467 F. 3d 1038, 1041 (CA7 2006); In re Arbitra
tion Between Monegasque de Reassurances S. A. M. (Monde
Re) v. NAK Naftogaz of Ukraine, 311 F. 3d 488, 497–498
(CA2 2002); In re Papandreou, 139 F. 3d, at 255–256 (forum
non conveniens may be resolved ahead of jurisdictional is
sues). Satisfied that forum non conveniens may justify dis
missal of an action though jurisdictional issues remain unre
solved, we reverse the Third Circuit’s judgment.
II
A federal court has discretion to dismiss a case on the
ground of forum non conveniens “when an alternative forum
has jurisdiction to hear [the] case, and . . . trial in the chosen
forum would establish . . . oppressiveness and vexation to a
defendant . . . out of all proportion to plaintiff ’s convenience,
or . . . the chosen forum [is] inappropriate because of consid
erations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal
problems.” American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U. S. 443,
447–448 (1994) (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454
U. S. 235, 241 (1981), in turn quoting Koster v. (American)
Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 330 U. S. 518, 524 (1947)).
Dismissal for forum non conveniens reflects a court’s as
sessment of a “range of considerations, most notably the
convenience to the parties and the practical difficulties that
can attend the adjudication of a dispute in a certain locality.”
Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U. S. 706, 723 (1996)
(citations omitted). We have characterized forum non con
veniens as, essentially, “a supervening venue provision, per
mitting displacement of the ordinary rules of venue when, in
light of certain conditions, the trial court thinks that jurisdic
tion ought to be declined.” American Dredging, 510 U. S.,

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
430 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L
SHIPPING CORP.
Opinion of the Court
at 453; cf. In re Papandreou, 139 F. 3d, at 255 (forum non
conveniens “involves a deliberate abstention from the exer
cise of jurisdiction”).
The common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens “has
continuing application [in federal courts] only in cases where
the alternative forum is abroad,” American Dredging, 510
U. S., at 449, n. 2, and perhaps in rare instances where a state
or territorial court serves litigational convenience best. See
14D C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and
Procedure § 3828, pp. 620–623, and nn. 9–10 (3d ed. 2007).
For the federal court system, Congress has codified the doc
trine and has provided for transfer, rather than dismissal,
when a sister federal court is the more convenient place for
trial of the action. See 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a) (“For the con
venience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,
a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought.”);
cf. § 1406(a) (“The district court of a district in which is filed
a case laying venue in the wrong division or district shall
dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such
case to any district or division in which it could have been
brought.”); Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U. S. 463, 466
(1962) (Section 1406(a) “authorize[s] the transfer of [a]
cas[e] . . . whether the court in which it was filed had personal
jurisdiction over the defendants or not.”).
A defendant invoking forum non conveniens ordinarily
bears a heavy burden in opposing the plaintiff ’s chosen
forum. When the plaintiff ’s choice is not its home forum,
however, the presumption in the plaintiff ’s favor “applies
with less force,” for the assumption that the chosen forum is
appropriate is in such cases “less reasonable.” Piper Air
craft Co., 454 U. S., at 255–256.
III
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83
(1998), clarified that a federal court generally may not rule

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
431 Cite as: 549 U. S. 422 (2007)
Opinion of the Court
on the merits of a case without first determining that it has
jurisdiction over the category of claim in suit (subject-matter
jurisdiction) and the parties (personal jurisdiction). See id.,
at 93–102. “Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed
at all in any cause”; it may not assume jurisdiction for the
purpose of deciding the merits of the case. Id., at 94 (quot
ing Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514 (1869)).
While Steel Co. confirmed that jurisdictional questions or
dinarily must precede merits determinations in dispositional
order, Ruhrgas held that there is no mandatory “sequencing
of jurisdictional issues.” 526 U. S., at 584. In appropriate
circumstances, Ruhrgas decided, a court may dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction without first establishing subject
matter jurisdiction. See id., at 578.
Both Steel Co. and Ruhrgas recognized that a federal court
has leeway “to choose among threshold grounds for denying
audience to a case on the merits.” Ruhrgas, 526 U. S., at
585; Steel Co., 523 U. S., at 100–101, n. 3. Dismissal short of
reaching the merits means that the court will not “proceed
at all” to an adjudication of the cause. Thus, a district court
declining to adjudicate state-law claims on discretionary
grounds need not first determine whether those claims fall
within its pendent jurisdiction. See Moor v. County of Ala
meda, 411 U. S. 693, 715–716 (1973). Nor must a federal
court decide whether the parties present an Article III case
or controversy before abstaining under Younger v. Harris,
401 U. S. 37 (1971). See Ellis v. Dyson, 421 U. S. 426, 433–
434 (1975). A dismissal under Totten v. United States, 92
U. S. 105 (1876) (prohibiting suits against the Government
based on covert espionage agreements), we recently ob
served, also “represents the sort of ‘threshold question’
[that] . . . may be resolved before addressing jurisdiction.”
Tenet v. Doe, 544 U. S. 1, 7, n. 4 (2005). The principle under
lying these decisions was well stated by the Seventh Circuit:
“[J]urisdiction is vital only if the court proposes to issue a
judgment on the merits.” Intec USA, 467 F. 3d, at 1041.

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
432 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L
SHIPPING CORP.
Opinion of the Court
IV
A forum non conveniens dismissal “den[ies] audience to a
case on the merits,” Ruhrgas, 526 U. S., at 585; it is a deter
mination that the merits should be adjudicated elsewhere.
See American Dredging, 510 U. S., at 454; Chick Kam Choo
v. Exxon Corp., 486 U. S. 140, 148 (1988). The Third Circuit
recognized that forum non conveniens “is a non-merits
ground for dismissal.” 436 F. 3d, at 359. Accord In re Pa
pandreou, 139 F. 3d, at 255; Monde Re, 311 F. 3d, at 497–
498. A district court therefore may dispose of an action
by a forum non conveniens dismissal, bypassing questions
of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, when consid
erations of convenience, fairness, and judicial economy so
warrant.
As the Third Circuit observed, Van Cauwenberghe v.
Biard, 486 U. S. 517, 527–530 (1988), does not call for a differ
ent conclusion. See 436 F. 3d, at 359–360. Biard presented
the question whether a district court’s denial of a motion to
dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens qualifies for
immediate appeal under the collateral order doctrine of
Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541
(1949). Biard, 486 U. S., at 527. The Court held that a re
fusal to dismiss for forum non conveniens, an interlocutory
order, does not fall within the circumscribed collateral order
exception to the firm final judgment rule generally govern
ing federal court proceedings. In that context, the Court
observed that some factors relevant to forum non conve
niens, notably what evidence will bear on the plaintiff ’s
claim or on defenses to the claim, “will substantially overlap
factual and legal issues of the underlying dispute.” Id.,
at 529.
That observation makes eminent sense when the question
is whether an issue is so discrete from the merits as to justify
departure from the rule that a party may not appeal until
the district court has rendered a final judgment disassociat
ing itself from the case. See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay,

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
433 Cite as: 549 U. S. 422 (2007)
Opinion of the Court
437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978) (“To come within the ‘small class’ of
decisions excepted from the final-judgment rule by Cohen,
the order must conclusively determine the disputed question,
resolve an important issue completely separate from the
merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on ap
peal from a final judgment.”). Biard’s point, however, does
not carry over to the question here at issue.
Of course a court may need to identify the claims pre
sented and the evidence relevant to adjudicating those issues
to intelligently rule on a forum non conveniens motion.
But other threshold issues may similarly involve a brush
with “factual and legal issues of the underlying dispute.”
Biard, 486 U. S., at 529. For example, in ruling on the non
merits threshold question of personal jurisdiction, a court
may be called upon to determine whether a defendant’s con
tacts with the forum relate to the claim advanced by the
plaintiff. See, e. g., Ruhrgas, 526 U. S., at 581, n. 4 (noting
that the District Court’s holding that it lacked personal juris
diction rested on its conclusion “that Marathon had not
shown that Ruhrgas pursued the alleged pattern of fraud
and misrepresentation during the Houston meetings”). The
critical point here, rendering a forum non conveniens deter
mination a threshold, nonmerits issue in the relevant context,
is simply this: Resolving a forum non conveniens motion
does not entail any assumption by the court of substantive
“law-declaring power.” See id., at 584–585 (quoting In re
Papandreou, 139 F. 3d, at 255).
Statements in this Court’s opinion in Gulf Oil Corp. v.
Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501 (1947), account in large part for the
Third Circuit’s conclusion that forum non conveniens can
come into play only after a domestic court determines that
it has jurisdiction over the cause and the parties and is a
proper venue for the action. See 436 F. 3d, at 361–362.
The Court said in Gulf Oil that “the doctrine of forum non
conveniens can never apply if there is absence of jurisdic
tion,” 330 U. S., at 504, and that “[i]n all cases in which . . .

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
434 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L
SHIPPING CORP.
Opinion of the Court
forum non conveniens comes into play, it presupposes at
least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to proc
ess,” id., at 506–507.
Those statements from Gulf Oil, perhaps less than “felici
tously” crafted, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 14, draw their meaning
from the context in which they were embedded. The ques
tion presented in Gulf Oil was whether a court fully compe
tent to adjudicate the case, i. e., one that plainly had jurisdic
tion over the cause and the parties and was a proper venue,
could nevertheless dismiss the action under the forum non
conveniens doctrine. The Court answered that question
“yes.”
As to the first statement—that “forum non conveniens
can never apply if there is absence of jurisdiction”—it is of
course true that once a court determines that jurisdiction is
lacking, it can proceed no further and must dismiss the case
on that account. In that scenario “forum non conveniens
can never apply.”
The second statement—that forum non conveniens “pre
supposes at least two forums” with authority to adjudicate
the case—was made in response to the Gulf Oil plaintiff ’s
argument to this effect: Because the federal forum chosen by
the plaintiff possessed jurisdiction and venue was proper, the
court was obliged to adjudicate the case. See 330 U. S., at
504 (explaining that a court’s statutory empowerment to en
tertain a suit “does not settle the question whether it must
do so”). Notably, in speaking of what the forum non conve
niens doctrine “presupposes,” the Court said nothing that
would negate a court’s authority to presume, rather than dis
positively decide, the propriety of the forum in which the
plaintiff filed suit.
In sum, Gulf Oil did not present the question we here
address: whether a federal court can dismiss under the
forum non conveniens doctrine before definitively ascertain
ing its own jurisdiction. Confining the statements we have

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
435 Cite as: 549 U. S. 422 (2007)
Opinion of the Court
quoted to the setting in which they were made, we find in
Gulf Oil no hindrance to the decision we reach today.
The Third Circuit expressed the further concern that a
court failing first to establish its jurisdiction could not condi
tion a forum non conveniens dismissal on the defendant’s
waiver of any statute of limitations defense or objection to
the foreign forum’s jurisdiction. Unable so to condition a
dismissal, the Court of Appeals feared, a court could not
shield the plaintiff against a foreign tribunal’s refusal to en
tertain the suit. 436 F. 3d, at 363, and n. 21. Accord In re
Papandreou, 139 F. 3d, at 256, n. 6. Here, however, Malay
sia International faces no genuine risk that the more conven
ient forum will not take up the case. Proceedings to resolve
the parties’ dispute are underway in China, with Sinochem
as the plaintiff. Jurisdiction of the Guangzhou Admiralty
Court has been raised, determined, and affirmed on appeal.
We therefore need not decide whether a court conditioning
a forum non conveniens dismissal on the waiver of jurisdic
tional or limitations defenses in the foreign forum must first
determine its own authority to adjudicate the case.
V
This is a textbook case for immediate forum non conve
niens dismissal. The District Court’s subject-matter juris
diction presented an issue of first impression in the Third
Circuit, see 436 F. 3d, at 355, and was considered at some
length by the courts below. Discovery concerning personal
jurisdiction would have burdened Sinochem with expense
and delay. And all to scant purpose: The District Court in
evitably would dismiss the case without reaching the merits,
given its well-considered forum non conveniens appraisal.
Judicial economy is disserved by continuing litigation in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania given the proceedings long
launched in China. And the gravamen of Malaysia Inter
national’s complaint—misrepresentations to the Guangzhou

549US2 Unit: $U21 [03-28-10 12:35:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN
436 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L
SHIPPING CORP.
Opinion of the Court
Admiralty Court in the course of securing arrest of the ves
sel in China—is an issue best left for determination by the
Chinese courts.
If, however, a court can readily determine that it lacks
jurisdiction over the cause or the defendant, the proper
course would be to dismiss on that ground. In the mine run
of cases, jurisdiction “will involve no arduous inquiry” and
both judicial economy and the consideration ordinarily ac
corded the plaintiff ’s choice of forum “should impel the fed
eral court to dispose of [those] issue[s] first.” Ruhrgas, 526
U. S., at 587–588. But where subject-matter or personal ju
risdiction is difficult to determine, and forum non conve
niens considerations weigh heavily in favor of dismissal, the
court properly takes the less burdensome course.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Ap
peals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.