(1) In any action otherwise properly filed in a court of this state, a motion to dismiss without prejudice under the doctrine of forum non conveniens shall be granted if:
(a) The claimant or claimants named in the motion are not residents of the state of Colorado;
(b) An alternative forum exists;
(c) The injury or damage alleged to have been suffered occurred outside of the state of Colorado;
(d) A substantial portion of the witnesses and evidence is outside of the state of Colorado; and
(e) There is a significant possibility that Colorado law will not apply to some or all of the claims.
(2) In any action otherwise properly filed in a court of this state, a motion to dismiss without prejudice under the doctrine of forum non conveniens may be granted if the court finds that the factor specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section is present and that at least one or more but fewer than all of the factors specified in paragraphs (b) to (e) of subsection (1) of this section are present, and based upon such factors, the court finds that in the interest of judicial economy or for the convenience of the parties, a partys claim or action should be heard in a forum outside of Colorado.
(3) In determining whether the factors specified in subsection (1) of this section are present, the court may consider evidence outside of the pleadings, but no formal discovery shall be permitted.
(4) (a) The court may set conditions for dismissing a claim or action under this section as the interests of justice may require.
(b) If the statute of limitations in the alternative forum expires while the claim is pending in a court in Colorado, the court shall grant a dismissal under this section only if each defendant waives all defenses that the statute of limitation in the alternative forum has expired.
Source: L. 2004: Entire part added, p. 402, 1, effective August 4.
Except in most unusual circumstances, the choice of a Colorado forum by a resident plaintiff will not be disturbed. Judicial economy and the risk of double recovery are not sufficient grounds to dismiss a case based on forum non conveniens. Cox v. Sage Hospitality Res., LLC, 2017 COA 59, 413 P.3d 302.
13-20-1101. Action involving exercise of constitutional rights - motion to dismiss - appeal - legislative declaration - definitions