Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV08417, Date: 2023-10-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08417    Hearing Date: October 23, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On April 14, 2023, Plaintiff Summer Ferguson (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Vadhir Derbez (Defendant) for injuries allegedly sustained in a paramotor accident. Plaintiff alleges that on December 19, 2022, the injury occurred after Plaintiff and Defendant attempted to tandem paramotor while strapped to each other. (Complaint ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges the incident took place on Defendant’s property at 398 Belflower Road, Tifton, Georgia 31794. (Id. ¶ 4.)

Defendant now moves for an order dismissing the action, or in the alternative, staying the action, on the ground that California is an inconvenient forum. Defendant argues that Georgia is a more convenient forum because the incident took place in Georgia and that is where he resides. Plaintiff opposes and Defendant replies.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 states, in relevant part: “(a) When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.”¿ 

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10 states, in relevant part: “(a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one of more of the following purposes: . . . (2) to stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.”¿ 

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (b)’s codification of “[f]orum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.”¿ (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.)¿ 

The first part of the analysis in determining whether an action should be dismissed due to being filed in an inconvenient forum is whether a suitable alternative forum exists.¿ (See Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d 744, 752; National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 918.)¿ A suitable alternative forum exists when the “. . . defendants are subject to the court’s jurisdiction and the cause of action is not barred by the statute of limitations.”¿ (Guimei v. General Electric Co. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 689, 694.)¿ 

The second part of the analysis is the weighing and balancing of private and public factors.¿ (National Football League, supra, 216, Cal.App.4th at 918.)¿ “The private interest facts are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuring judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive, such as the ease of access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.¿ The public interest facts include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interest of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and the weighing of competing interests of California and the alternative jurisdiction in the litigation.”¿ (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463-1464.)¿ “If the plaintiff is a California resident, the plaintiff's choice of a forum should rarely be disturbed unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant. (National Football League, supra, 216, Cal.App.4th at 917.)

The party seeking a dismissal due to an inconvenient forum bears the burden of proof.¿ (National Football League, supra, 216, Cal.App.4th at 926.) 

DISCUSSION

Applying the first step in the analysis, Defendant argues that Georgia is a suitable alternative forum because it has a two-year statute of limitations for personal injuries. Since the injury took place on December 19, 2022, Plaintiff has time to file an action. Additionally, Defendant argues Georgia has subject-matter jurisdiction over the case since the injuries took place within the state. Plaintiff does not appear to contest these findings, but rather argues the second step in the analysis.

Regarding the weighing and balancing of the private and public factors, Defendant argues that all the potential witnesses reside in Georgia, including the medical providers who treated Plaintiff. Defendant also asserts that he resides in Georgia. Plaintiff admits that she received emergency room care in Georgia after the accident, but returned to California as soon as she could and received the remainder of her care in Los Angeles County. (Ferguson Decl. ¶ 14.)   

Since Plaintiff is a California resident, the balance of factors must be strongly in Defendant’s favor. Based on the above, Defendant has not met his burden. Defendant appears to base his argument on the mere fact that the accident took place in Georgia and that he lives there. While some witnesses may reside in Georgia, Plaintiff resides and also sought medical care in California. Therefore, evidence of her injuries is likely to be located in California as well. Additionally, Defendant is the only named defendant in the action, as opposed to a large group of individuals out-of-state. As a result, Defendant has not demonstrated the expense or burden of obtaining witnesses or litigating this case in California.

The Court is also not convinced that the public factors weigh in Defendant’s favor. In Roulier, the court distinguished Stangvik, where the public interest favored the defendant when there were 235 actions pending in California related to the litigation. (Roulier v. Cannondale (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1191–92.) In Roulier, however, the court found the public factors did not weigh in favor of the defendant because there were no other actions against the defendant related to the same issue. (Id. at 1192.) As discussed above, this case involves one plaintiff and for now, one defendant. Therefore, it is unlikely to overburden the courts in California.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, stay, for forum non conveniens is DENIED.

Defendant shall give notice of the Court’s order and file a proof of service of such.