Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV26552, Date: 2023-08-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26552    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendants Dalya Eilat, Veetahl Eilat Rachel, and Aaron Eilat’s Motion to Stay for Forum Non Conveniens

Defendants Dalya Eilat, Veetahl Eilat Rachel, and Aaron Eilat moved to quash service of summons or, in the alternative, to stay this action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.  They later consented to personal jurisdiction and withdrew the motion as to quashing service of summons.  On November 16, 2023, the court stayed the action against them based on forum non conveniens.  The court found Israel is the more suitable place for trial as to plaintiff and the three moving defendants.

On January 12, 2024, plaintiff named 11 new defendants to the action via Doe amendments.  “[A] moving defendant seeking to establish an alternative forum is suitable must show that all defendants are subject to jurisdiction in the proposed alternative forum.” (David v. Medtronic, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 734, 743.)  ) But “a plaintiff cannot defeat a motion” based on forum non conveniens “merely by naming a nominal defendant who is not subject to jurisdiction in the” alternative forum or “by including as a defendant a party who … is of no real importance to the outcome of the case.” (Id. at p. 744.)  The moving defendants have not shown that all other defendants are either (a) subject to jurisdiction in Israel or (b) of no real importance to the outcome of the case.  The doctrine of forum non conveniens therefore does not apply.

The court hereby lifts the stay of this action.