Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV18531, Date: 2022-09-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV18531    Hearing Date: September 8, 2022    Dept: 28

Specially Appearing Defendants James D. Hyde and Mountain Enterprises Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively, Stay Action for Inconvenient Forum

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Angela Dyer (“Dyer”) and Estate of Gregory Dyer (“Estate”) filed this action against Defendants James D. Hyde (“Hyde”) and Mountain Enterprises Inc. (“MEI”) for negligence, negligent hiring/training/supervision, wrongful death and survival action.

On July 15, 2022, Specially Appearing Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively, Stay Action for Inconvenient Forum to be heard on September 8, 2022. On July 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an opposition. On August 31, 2022, Defendants filed a reply.

Trial is scheduled for December 5, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Defendants request the Court dismiss or stay this action on the grounds that California is an inconvenient forum and that Plaintiffs signed a forum selection clause.

Plaintiffs request the Court deny the motion.

OBJECTIONS

All of Plaintiffs’ objections are overruled.

LEGAL STANDARD

CCP § 410.30(a) states: “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.”

“In considering whether to stay an action, in contrast to dismissing it, the plaintiff's residence is but one of many factors which the court may consider. The court can also take into account the amenability of the defendants to personal jurisdiction, the convenience of witnesses, the expense of trial, the choice of law, and indeed any consideration which legitimately bears upon the relative suitability or convenience of the alternative forums.” (Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels (1976) 15 Cal.3d 853, 860.) The inquiry is not based in whether the newly proposed forum is a better forum for the case, but rather whether California is a “seriously inconvenient forum.” (Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of No. America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 604, 611.)

In determining whether to grant a motion based on an inconvenient forum, the Court must determine: 1) if the alternate forum is “suitable” for trial and 2) if the balance of private and public interest factors makes it “just”. (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 746.) A forum is suitable “if there is jurisdiction and no statute of limitations bar to hearing the case on the merits.” (American Cemwood Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 431, 436.) If the case would be barred by the statute of limitations, the Court may still find the venue suitable if the defendants stipulate to not raise the statute of limitations as a defense. (Stangvik, supra at 752.) 

Public interest factors to be considered “"include [1] avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, [2] protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and [3] weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation." (Stangvik, 54 Cal. 3d at 751.)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs signed a mandatory forum selection clause that states that all allegations of negligence by the Defendants shall be litigated in the same state where the events occurred, which, in this case, is Colorado.

Defendants additionally argue that Colorado is the proper forum for this case. The accident occurred in Colorado. All witnesses are in Colorado, including emergency personnel. Neither Dyer nor Decedent were residents of the state of California at this time of the incident. Colorado’s residents have a larger vested interest in the case.

Plaintiffs argue that California is the domicile of Defendants and that the subject agreement does not have a forum selection clause. They cite that the relevant clause states that the agreement “extends to all acts of negligence...and is intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the laws of the State or Province in which the event(s) is/are conducted.” The Court agrees that this is not a clear forum selection clause. Instead, it appears to be more akin to a choice of law provision, which is not a solid basis for dismissal.

Plaintiffs further argue that there is not a suitable alternative as, because the statute of limitations has now run, Plaintiffs would be barred from asserting their claims in Colorado. In the absence of a proper stipulation from Defendants, Plaintiffs argue their claims are barred.

Plaintiffs also notes that Dyer and Hyde, both parties to the case, are not Colorado residences. The Court is unconvinced by the fact Hyde, a moving party, is in California, as he clearly has an interest in having this litigated in Colorado.

Given that a majority of the witnesses and the site of the accident are in Colorado, along with the choice of law provision, the Court finds good cause to stay the case. The Court will stay the case until filed in the proper Colorado court with a stipulation from Defendants to allow the filing, despite the statute of limitations.

CONCLUSION

Specially Appearing Defendants James D. Hyde and Mountain Enterprises Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively, Stay Action for Inconvenient Forum is GRANTED. The Court grants a stay on this action pending the filing of this case in the correct Colorado Court and parties filing a stipulation to proceed despite the statute of limitations issues.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.