(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 1
Syllabus
NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is
being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
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) pro
vided that Sinochem would purchase steel coils and that Triorient
would be paid under a letter of credit by producing a valid bill of lad
ing certifying 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 trans
port the coils, and hired a stevedoring company to load the coils in
Philadelphia. A bill of lading, dated April 30, 2003, triggered pay
ment under the letter of credit. Sinochem petitioned a Chinese admi
ralty court for preservation of a maritime claim against Malaysia In
ternational 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 admiralty court rejected Malaysia Inter
national’s jurisdictional objections to Sinochem’s complaint and that
ruling was affirmed on appeal.
Shortly after the Chinese admiralty court ordered the vessel’s ar
rest, Malaysia International filed this action in a United States Dis
trict Court, asserting that Sinochem’s preservation petition to the
Chinese court contained misrepresentations, and seeking compensa
tion for losses sustained due to the ship’s arrest. Sinochem moved to
dismiss on several grounds, including lack of subject-matter and per
sonal jurisdiction and the doctrine of forum non conveniens, under
which a federal district court may dismiss an action if a court abroad
is the more appropriate and convenient forum for adjudicating the
controversy. The District Court determined it had subject-matter ju
2 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L SHIPPING
CORP.
Syllabus
risdiction over the cause, concluded it lacked personal jurisdiction
over Sinochem under Pennsylvania law, conjectured that limited dis
covery might reveal that it had personal jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2), but dismissed on forum non conven
iens 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 held that the
District Court could not dismiss the case under the forum non con
veniens 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
threshold objection. In particular, a court need not resolve whether it
has authority to adjudicate the cause (subject-matter jurisdiction) or
personal 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. 5–12.
(a) A federal court has discretion to dismiss on forum non conven
iens grounds “when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear
[the] case, and . . . trial in the chosen forum would establish . . . op
pressiveness and vexation to a defendant . . . out of all proportion to
plaintiff’s convenience, or . . . the chosen forum [is] inappropriate be
cause of considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and
legal problems.” American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U. S. 443,
447–448. Such a dismissal 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.” Quackenbush 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 Air
craft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U. S. 235, 255–256. Pp. 5–6.
(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 jurisdic
tion), 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. 7–8.
(c) Forum non conveniens is a nonmerits ground for dismissal. See
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 3
Syllabus
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 issues of the underlying dispute.” Van Cauwen
berghe 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 presup
poses 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 answered in the affirmative
the question whether a court that had jurisdiction over the cause and
the parties and was a proper venue could nevertheless dismiss the
action under the forum non conveniens doctrine. Gulf Oil did not ad
dress the issue decided here: whether a federal court can presume,
rather than dispositively decide, its jurisdiction before dismissing
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 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, and thus could not shield the plaintiff against a foreign
tribunal’s refusal to entertain the suit—is not implicated on these
facts. Malaysia International faces no genuine risk that the more
convenient 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. 8–11.
(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 ju
risdiction would have burdened Sinochem with expense and delay to
scant purpose: The District Court inevitably would dismiss the case
4 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L SHIPPING
CORP.
Syllabus
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 mine run of cases, a court can readily de
termine that it lacks jurisdiction over the cause or the defendant, the
proper course would be to dismiss on that ground. But where sub
ject-matter or personal jurisdiction is difficult to determine, and fo
rum non conveniens considerations weigh heavily in favor of dis
missal, the court properly takes the less burdensome course. Pp. 11–
12.
436 F. 3d 349, reversed and remanded.
GINSBURG, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 1
Opinion of the Court
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to
notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Wash
ington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order
that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 06–102
_________________
SINOCHEM INTERNATIONAL CO. LTD., PETITIONER
v. MALAYSIA INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING
CORPORATION
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
[March 5, 2007]
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: “Whether a district court must first
conclusively establish [its own] jurisdiction before dismiss
ing a suit on the ground of forum non conveniens?” Pet.
for Cert. i. We hold that 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 threshold objec
tion. In particular, a court need not resolve whether it has
authority to adjudicate the cause (subject-matter jurisdic
tion) or personal jurisdiction over the defendant if it de
termines that, in any event, a foreign tribunal is plainly
the more suitable arbiter of the merits of the case.
I
The underlying controversy concerns alleged misrepre
sentations by a Chinese corporation to a Chinese admi
2 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L SHIPPING
CORP.
Opinion of the Court
ralty court resulting in the arrest of a Malaysian vessel in
China. In 2003, petitioner Sinochem International Com
pany Ltd. (Sinochem), a Chinese state-owned importer,
contracted with Triorient Trading, Inc. (Triorient), a do
mestic corporation that is not a party to this suit, to pur
chase steel coils. Pursuant to the agreement, Triorient
would receive payment under a letter of credit by produc
ing 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
Malaysia International Shipping Corporation (Malaysia
International), a Malaysian company, to transport the
coils to China. Triorient then hired a stevedoring com
pany 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
Admiralty Court in China for interim relief, i.e., preserva
tion of a maritime claim against Malaysia International
and arrest 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 Chinese 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
complaint against Malaysia International and others in
the Guangzhou Admiralty Court. Sinochem’s complaint
repeated 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 Memo & Order, at 50a; App. in No. 04–
1816 (CA3), pp. 52a–53a (Civil Complaint in Guangzhou
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 3
Opinion of the Court
Admiralty Court). The admiralty court rejected Malaysia
International’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 or
dered 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 International asserted in its federal court plead
ing that Sinochem’s preservation petition to the Guang
zhou court negligently misrepresented the “vessel’s fitness
and suitability to load its cargo.” Feb. 27 Memo & Order,
at 50a (internal quotation 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 dismiss the suit on several grounds,
including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of per
sonal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, and interna
tional 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). Neverthe
less, the court conjectured, limited discovery might reveal
that Sinochem’s national contacts sufficed to establish
personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Proce
dure 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 (herein
after Apr. 13 Memo & Order) (denial of Rule 59(e) motion).
4 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L SHIPPING
CORP.
Opinion of the Court
No significant interests of the United States were in
volved, 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 Philadelphia, 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 authority 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 dismissal, the majority nevertheless held that
the District Court could not dismiss the case under the
forum non conveniens doctrine unless and until it deter
mined definitively that it had both subject-matter jurisdic
tion over the cause and personal jurisdiction over the
defendant. 436 F. 3d 349 (CA3 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
conveniens doctrine: “protect[ing] a defendant from . . .
substantial 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 whatever 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. ___ (2006), to resolve a
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 5
Opinion of the Court
conflict among the Circuits on whether forum non conven
iens 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 advance of a forum non conveniens ruling), with Intec
USA, LLC v. Engle, 467 F. 3d 1038, 1041 (CA7 2006); In re
Arbitration 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 juris
dictional issues). Satisfied that forum non conveniens
may justify dismissal of an action though jurisdictional
issues remain unresolved, 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 plain
tiff’s convenience, or . . . the chosen forum [is] inappropri
ate because of considerations 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 assessment of a “range of
considerations, most notably the convenience to the par
ties and the practical difficulties that can attend the adju
dication of a dispute in a certain locality.” Quackenbush v.
Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U. S. 706, 723 (1996) (citations omit
ted). We have characterized forum non conveniens as,
essentially, “a supervening venue provision, permitting
6 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L SHIPPING
CORP.
Opinion of the Court
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.,
at 453; cf. In re Papandreou, 139 F. 3d, at 255 (forum non
conveniens “involves a deliberate abstention from the
exercise 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 Dredg
ing, 510 U. S., at 449, n. 2, and perhaps in rare instances
where a state or territorial court serves litigational con
venience 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 doctrine 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 convenience 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) (Sec
tion 1406(a) “authorize[s] the transfer of [a] cas[e] . . .
whether the court in which it was filed had personal juris
diction 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
Aircraft Co., 454 U. S., at 255–256.
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 7
Opinion of the Court
III
Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83
(1998), clarified that a federal court generally may not
rule on the merits of a case without first determining that
it has jurisdiction over the category of claim in suit (sub
ject-matter jurisdiction) and the parties (personal jurisdic
tion). 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 (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506,
514 (1869)).
While Steel Co. confirmed that jurisdictional questions
ordinarily must precede merits determinations in disposi
tional 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 es
tablishing 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. Dis
missal 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 Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 715–716
(1973). Nor must a federal court decide whether the par
ties present an Article III case or controversy before ab
staining 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) (prohib
iting suits against the Government based on covert espio
nage agreements), we recently observed, also “represents
the sort of ‘threshold question’ [that] . . . may be resolved
8 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L SHIPPING
CORP.
Opinion of the Court
before addressing jurisdiction.” Tenet v. Doe, 544 U. S. 1,
7, n. 4 (2005). The principle underlying 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.
IV
A forum non conveniens dismissal “den[ies] audience to
a case on the merits,” Ruhrgas, 526 U. S., at 585; it is a
determination 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 Papandreou, 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, bypass
ing questions of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction,
when considerations 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
different 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 refusal 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 governing federal court proceedings. In that
context, the Court observed that some factors relevant to
forum non conveniens, 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 under
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 9
Opinion of the Court
lying dispute.” Id., at 529.
That observation makes eminent sense when the ques
tion is whether an issue is so discrete from the merits as to
justify departure from the rule that a party may not ap
peal until the district court has rendered a final judgment
disassociating itself from the case. See Coopers & Ly
brand v. Livesay, 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 appeal 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 nonmerits threshold question of personal jurisdic
tion, a court may be called upon to determine whether a
defendant’s contacts 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 jurisdiction rested on its conclusion “that
Marathon had not shown that Ruhrgas pursued the al
leged pattern of fraud and misrepresentation during the
Houston meetings”). The critical point here, rendering a
forum non conveniens determination a threshold, nonmer
its issue in the relevant context, is simply this: Resolving a
forum non conveniens motion does not entail any assump
tion 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.
10 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L SHIPPING
CORP.
Opinion of the Court
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
. . . forum non conveniens comes into play, it presupposes
at least two forums in which the defendant is amenable to
process,” id., at 506–507.
Those statements from Gulf Oil, perhaps less than
“felicitously” crafted, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 14, draw their
meaning from the context in which they were embedded.
The question presented in Gulf Oil was whether a court
fully competent to adjudicate the case, i.e., one that
plainly had jurisdiction 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 conven
iens can never apply.”
The second statement—that forum non conveniens
“presupposes at least two forums” with authority to adju
dicate 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 entertain a suit “does not settle
the question whether it must do so”). Notably, in speaking
of what the forum non conveniens doctrine “presupposes,”
Cite as: 549 U. S. ____ (2007) 11
Opinion of the Court
the Court said nothing that would negate a court’s author
ity to presume, rather than dispositively decide, the pro
priety 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 ascer
taining its own jurisdiction. Confining the statements we
have 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
condition a forum non conveniens dismissal on the defen
dant’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 entertain the suit. 436 F. 3d, at 363, and n. 21.
Accord In re Papandreou, 139 F. 3d, at 256, n. 6. Here,
however, Malaysia International faces no genuine risk
that the more convenient 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, deter
mined, and affirmed on appeal. We therefore need not
decide whether a court conditioning a forum non conven
iens dismissal on the waiver of jurisdictional 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 conven
iens 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
12 SINOCHEM INT’L CO. v. MALAYSIA INT’L SHIPPING
CORP.
Opinion of the Court
jurisdiction would have burdened Sinochem with expense
and delay. And all to scant purpose: 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 Eastern District of Pennsylvania given the
proceedings long launched in China. And the gravamen of
Malaysia International’s complaint—misrepresentations
to the Guangzhou Admiralty Court in the course of secur
ing arrest of the vessel 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
accorded the plaintiff’s choice of forum “should impel the
federal court to dispose of [those] issue[s] first.” Ruhrgas,
526 U. S., at 587–588. But where subject-matter or per
sonal jurisdiction is difficult to determine, and forum non
conveniens considerations weigh heavily in favor of dis
missal, the court properly takes the less burdensome
course.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of
Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceed
ings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.