in conflict of law and in law that is foreign. Id. at 508-09, 67 S.Ct. at 843. Forum non conveniens “has always afforded great deference to the plaintiffs forum choice.” Pirelli Tire, 247 S.W.3d at 675. But the doctrine “generally affords substantially less deference to a nonresident’s forum choice.” Id. Dismissal based on forum non conveniens is appropriate “when there are sufficient contacts between the defendant and the forum state to confer personal jurisdiction upon the trial court, but the case itself has no significant connection to the forum.” Id. We apply the Texas doctrine of forum non conveniens to determine whether this Jones Act case may proceed in a Texas state court. American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443, 453-54, 114 S.Ct. 981, 988, 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994) (<HOLDING>). As a state court applying federal substantive
holding that jurisdiction must be resolved before applying the act of state doctrine because that doctrine is a substantive rule of law holding that issue concerning forum non conveniens decision was not suitable for interlocutory appeal in part because a forum non conveniens decision is inherently factsensitive holding that the unavailability absent compulsory process of a witness would result in serious injustice thus was a sufficient factor in granting the forum non conveniens motion holding that the jones act does not preempt state law in applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens and thus state law governs holding that a district court may dismiss based on forum non conveniens without first addressing personal jurisdiction