It is indisputable, however, that it is burdensome for a court to hear a case in which the forum has no connection to the litigation. See, e.g., Lynch v. Pack, 68 Wn. App. 626, 846 P.2d 542, 545 (1993). The fact that Santa Fe County has no relation to the litigation makes it unfair to impose either jury duty upon the members of the community or the cost of trial upon its taxpayers.

Although California courts would have little difficulty in applying Washington law, this factor slightly favors keeping this contract action in Pierce County. See Lynch v. Pack, 68 Wn. App. 626, 634, 846 P.2d 542 (1993) (affirming forum non conveniens dismissal in part because agreement required application of Montana law with which Montana courts were more familiar). C. Significant Cases

The court must consider the evidence presented and make what is necessarily a subjective judgment." Lynch v. Pack, 68 Wn. App. 626, 635, 846 P.2d 542 (1993) (affirming dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens). The availability of a forum in the state where the most costly cleanup will take place is a tenable reason for a forum non conveniens dismissal, even where there are some factors weighing in favor of a different forum.

King Videocable Co., 80 Wn. App. at 905 (citing Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258, 268-69, 113 S.Ct. 1213, 122 L.Ed.2d 604 (1993)). Myers v. Boeing Co., 115 Wn.2d 123, 128-29, 794 P.2d 1272 (1990) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947)); Lynch v. Pack, 68 Wn. App. 626, 629-30, 846 P.2d 542 (1993). When both a court and an agency have jurisdiction over a matter, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction determines whether the court or the agency should make the initial decision.