Judge: Ashfaq G. Chowdhury, Case: 24NNCV06382, Date: 2025-05-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV06382    Hearing Date: May 1, 2025    Dept: E

Case No: 24NNCV06382
Hearing Date:  05/01/2025 – 8:30am

Trial Date: UNSET

Case Name: Michelle L. Ganus as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Fisher Ganus v. Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc., and DOES 1-100,

TENTATIVE RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS OR STAY FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS

RELIEF REQUESTED
Defendant, Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc., moves for an order dismissing, or alternatively, staying Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on 12/6/2024, in its entirety for forum non conveniens pursuant to CCP §§ 410.30 and 418.10.

PROCEDURAL
Moving Party: Defendant, Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff, Michelle L. Ganus as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Fisher Ganus

Moving Papers: Notice/Motion; Request for Judicial Notice

Opposition Papers: Opposition

Reply Papers: Reply

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff, Michelle L. Ganus, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Michael Fisher Ganus, filed the instant action on 12/6/2024 against Defendants, Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc., and Does 1-100.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges three causes of action for: (1) Negligence, (2) Wantonness, and (3) Negligent Hiring & Retention.

Plaintiff, Michelle L. Ganus, alleges that she resides in Mobile County, Alabama, and that she is the mother of her late son, Michael Fisher Ganus, and that she was appointed personal representative of the Estate of Michael “Fisher” Ganus. (Compl. ¶ 1. )

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendant, Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc., is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California that has its principal place of business and corporate headquarters in Pasadena, California. (Compl. 2.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint stems from allegations of a fatal work place injury that resulted in Fisher’s death.

Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that on February 25, 2020, Fisher was an employee and/or co-employee of Harbor Rail Services, and Plaintiff alleges that at that time, Harbor Rail Services was hired by Alabama & Gulf Coast Railway, LLC (AGR) to provide services for railroad operations, including, but not limited to servicing, routine repairing, and maintaining rail cars owned and operated by AGR and various third parties. (Compl. ¶ 6.)

On 4/25/2025, Plaintiff filed four Doe Amendments.

Doe 1 is named as Defendant, Keith Dewayne Weaver.

Doe 2 is named as Defendant, James Edward Hall.

Does 3 is named as Defendant, Mark Marian Myronowicz.

Doe 4 is named as Defendant, Thomas Broderick.

ANALYSIS
Defendant moves under CCP § 410.30 to have this action dismissed, or stayed, because Defendant argues that Alabama, not California, is the most convenient and appropriate forum for this dispute.

“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.” (CCP § 410.30(a).)

“Forum 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.)

“In applying the traditional forum non conveniens analysis, the trial court must engage in a two-step process, on which the defendant bears the burden of proof. [Citation.] In the first step, the court must determine whether a suitable alternative forum exists. [Citation.] If the court finds that a suitable alternative forum exists, it must then balance the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action in California. [Citation.]” (Animal Film, LLC v. D.E.J. Productions, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 466, 472.)

Suitable Alternative Forum
“The trial court’s first determination, whether there is a suitable alternative forum, is a nondiscretionary legal question subject to de novo review.” (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1464.) “A forum is suitable if there is jurisdiction and no statute of limitations bar to hearing the case on the merits.” (Animal Film, LLC v. D.E.J. Productions, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 466, 472.)

Defendant argues it will stipulate to submit to personal jurisdiction in Alabama. (Decl. Tom Broderick, ¶ 6.)

Even though Defendant bears the burden of proof to show that a suitable alternative forum exists, confusingly, Defendant argues that the statute of limitations has run for Plaintiff’s action in both Alabama and California.

For Defendant to argue that the statute of limitations has run for Plaintiff to bring this action in Alabama, this would lean in favor of denying Defendant’s motion.

However, in Opposition, Plaintiff concedes that Alabama could be a proper venue. (See Oppo., p. 5, ln. 25.)

Further, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a motion for choice of law that is scheduled to be heard 5/1/2025. In Plaintiff’s motion for choice of law, Plaintiff explained that Alabama substantive workers’ compensation and tort law should apply in this action.

Therefore, in light of Defendant stating that it would stipulate to personal jurisdiction in Alabama, and in light of Plaintiff conceding that Alabama could be a proper venue, it appears as if Alabama has jurisdiction and there is no statute of limitations bar to Plaintiff’s Complaint in Alabama.

Balancing Private and Public Interests
As stated in Animal Film, LLC v. D.E.J. Productions, Inc.:

If the court determines that a suitable alternative forum exists, it must decide whether the private and public interests, on balance, favor retaining the action in California. “The private interest factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing 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.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 819 P.2d 14.) The residences of the plaintiff and defendant are relevant, and a corporate defendant's principal place of business is presumptively a convenient forum. (Id. at pp. 754–755, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 819 P.2d 14.) 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. [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 754, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 819 P.2d 14; see Bechtel Corp. v. Industrial Indem. Co. (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 45, 51–53, 150 Cal.Rptr. 29.) The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening California courts, protecting potential jurors who should not be called on to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing ties of California and the alternate jurisdiction to the litigation.

(Animal Film, LLC v. D.E.J. Productions, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 466, 473.)

“The ultimate question is whether the balancing of the Stangvik factors shows that California is a seriously inconvenient forum.” (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1464.)

Here, it is undisputed that Defendant’s principal place of business is in California; therefore, California is a presumptively convenient forum. However, a resident defendant may overcome the presumption of convenience by evidence that the alternate jurisdiction is a more convenient place for trial of the action. (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1465.) “The trial court must be flexible in its weighing of the factors.” (Id.) “[P]rivate and public interest factors must be applied flexibly, without giving undue emphasis to any one element.” (Id. quoting Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 753.)

Here, Defendant appears to have met its burden in overcoming the presumption of convenience by showing that Alabama is a more convenient place for trial of the action and that California is seriously inconvenient.

The balancing of private and public interest strongly support Alabama as being the more convenient forum.

Plaintiff argues that the private interest factors lean in favor of California because Defendant chose to incorporate in California and because trial will be less expensive in California because most of the witnesses and evidence are in California. Plaintiff argues that if this case is litigated in Alabama, Defendant will have to fly its counsel to California multiple times for multiple depositions.

Plaintiff also argues that many, if not more, relevant witnesses are located in California or another state than in Alabama.

Here, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s arguments availing with respect to the private interests.

Plaintiff submitted a chart on page 7 of her Opposition, and that chart indicates that Defendant and three others are allegedly located in California. However, that chart also indicates that one potential witness and seven other potential witnesses are located in neither California nor Alabama. Therefore, to argue that it would be cheaper to litigate in California, when eight potential witnesses are located outside of California, appears specious.

Further, as Defendant pointed out, the injury occurred in Alabama, the jobsite is located in Alabama, two federal agencies investigated the incident in Alabama, EMS responded to the incident at the work site in Alabama, and the coroner is located in Alabama. Additionally, Defendant pointed out how the forklift and equipment relevant to Plaintiff’s claims have been inspected in Alabama.

While Plaintiffs point to the fact that Defendant and its documents, ESI, and officers and corporate representatives are located in California, it appears as if the costs of obtaining witnesses and evidence that are located outside of California would be far more costly than the evidence Defendant would be required to bring to Alabama. For example, the physical evidence such as the industrial truck and the boom lift attachment are located in Alabama. Further, based on the Complaint and Plaintiff’s Opposition, it appears that there are far more potential witnesses that are not located in California than are located in California.

As stated in Morris v. AGFA Corp. :

As another division of the First District recently stated: “Stangvik did not require an extensive evidentiary showing. The principal evidentiary showing Stangvik requires is that trial may be had in the alternative forum and that some form of relief may be granted.... Examination of the private and public interests at stake involve more general considerations.” (Campbell v. Parker–Hannifin Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1534, 1542, 82 Cal.Rptr.2d 202; see, e.g., Hemmelgarn v. Boeing Co. (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 576, 585–590, 165 Cal.Rptr. 190 [court looks to general facts of case and general considerations under forum non conveniens factors, and makes both a quantitative and a qualitative analysis].)

In other words, the evidence before the court, which may include affidavits of the parties, discovery responses, and the undisputed general knowledge of the nature of the action, need only be sufficient to give the court the ability to soundly exercise its discretion regarding the applicability of the general considerations of the Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d 744, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 819 P.2d 14, factors to the question of forum non conveniens.

(Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1462.)

Not only do the private factors seem to demonstrate that this case should be held in Alabama, when balancing the public factors, those factors also demonstrate that this case should be heard in Alabama.

Although Plaintiff argues that Los Angeles has interest in adjudicating this matter and deterring future wrongful conduct from California corporations, the Court does not find Plaintiff’s argument availing.

“As Hansen observed, “California courts ... have little or no interest in litigation involving injuries incurred outside of California by nonresidents.” (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1467 citing Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 753, 760.)

Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint concedes that she is a resident of Alabama. Further, Plaintiff’s motion for choice of law conceded that Plaintiff’s son resided in Alabama, was hired and worked exclusively for Defendant at its jobsite in Alabama, and was killed on Defendant’s jobsite in Alabama. (See Pl. Mot. Choice of Law, p. 13.)

Here, although Defendant is a California corporation, the injury occurred to a Plaintiff who is an Alabama resident and was injured while in Alabama; therefore, by having this action tried in Alabama, potential California jurors would be protected from being called on to decide cases which the local community has little concern.

Further, Plaintiffs’ motion for choice of law stated, “Alabama has a specific interest in applying its laws to fatal incidents that happen within its jurisdiction, specifically those with a corporate defendant, as its legislature has enacted those laws to regulate corporate defendants who do business in the state the way it has determined to be in the best interest of justice.” (Pl. Mot. Choice of Law, p. 14.)

Not only would California jurors have little interest in this action, but Plaintiff concedes that Alabama has a specific interest in applying its laws to fatal incidents that happen within its jurisdiction. For Plaintiff to argue in her motion for choice of law that Alabama law should apply if this action were held in California appears to undercut Plaintiff’s argument that public factors lean in Plaintiff’s favor. If Plaintiff wants Alabama law to apply in this action, Alabama courts are in a much more favorable position to understand Alabama substantive and procedural law.

On balance, the private and public factors weight in favor of this case being heard in Alabama because Alabama is a more convenient forum and California is an inconvenient forum.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay this action based on inconvenient forum is GRANTED. The Court will hear argument as to how it should proceed as to if a stay or if a dismissal is more appropriate.

Defendant’s demurrer and motion to strike and Plaintiff’s motion for choice of law are denied as moot in light of this Court granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss or stay based on inconvenient forum.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted.