Richard J. D’agostino, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Robert N. Wilson, and Ronald G. Gelbman…

Summary

The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision that the plaintiff’s choice of New Jersey as the forum was not demonstrably inappropriate and that the motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds was improper. The Court emphasized that a plaintiff’s forum choice will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of real hardship and that differences in substantive law of an alternative forum are given little weight in the analysis. The decision rests on a balanced consideration of private‑ and public‑interest factors, without requiring a detailed choice‑of‑law analysis at the pleading stage.