Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 23STCV28116, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Defendant Emily Ann Smith’s motion for an order dismissing this action on the grounds of forum non conveniens is granted. Plaintiff James Lyle’s action is dismissed with prejudice.

Defendant Emily Ann Smith (“Smith”) (“Defendant”) moves for an order dismissing this action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. (Notice of Motion, pgs. 1-2.)

Plaintiff James Lyle (“Lyle”) (“Plaintiff”) filed his operative Complaint on November 16, 2023, alleging three causes of action against Defendant: (1) conversion; (2) breach of fiduciary duties; and (3) money had and received. Defendant filed her Answer on January 8, 2024.

Defendant filed the instant motion on June 25, 2024. Plaintiff filed his opposition on September 10, 2024. Defendant filed her reply on September 16, 2024.

Even if the court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction, it may stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. (C.C.P. §418.10(a)(2).)

If the court finds that “in the interest of substantial justice” an action filed in California should be adjudicated elsewhere, it may stay or dismiss the action on such conditions as may be just. (C.C.P. §410.30(a).)

C.C.P. §410.30(a) codifies the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. Forum non conveniens is not a jurisdictional doctrine; rather, it is “an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction [to stay or dismiss] 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 re Christopher B. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 551, 559.)

Defendant bears the burden of proof, meaning defendant must provide the trial court with sufficient evidence to enable it to carry out its weighing and balancing analysis. (National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 926-927, 933 n.15.)

Plaintiff’s choice of forum will not be disturbed unless the court is convinced: (1) a “suitable” alternative forum exists; and (2) the balance of private and public interest factors makes it “just” that the litigation proceed in the alternative forum. (Stangvik, 54 Cal.3d 744, 751; Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463.)

Where plaintiff is a California resident for purposes of forum non conveniens, there is a “strong presumption” in favor of plaintiff’s choice of forum. (See id.; Stangvik, 54 Cal.3d 744, 754 [noting that factors underlying “strong presumption” test apply only to residents of forum state].)

The fact the defendant may have consented or submitted to California jurisdiction does not prevent it from moving to stay or dismiss the action on forum non conveniens grounds. (Appalachian Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 427, 440.)

Defendant met her burden to demonstrate a suitable alternative forum exists. First, Defendant sufficiently demonstrates New York is a suitable alternative forum: Defendant’s primary duties as Plaintiff’s personal assistant were carried out in New York City, all witnesses to the alleged acts and employment relationship in the operative Complaint reside in New York, and Plaintiff can counter-sue Defendant in New York for personal injuries. (Decl. of Smith ¶¶5, 7, 13.) Plaintiff’s claims are not barred by the three-year the statute of limitations in New York’s Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) §214(3) for a cause of action for conversion or CPLR §214(4) for a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty, or the six-year statute of limitations for money had and received in CPLR §213. Further, Plaintiff has pursued his claims against Defendant in New York, specifically the July 10, 2024, mediation scheduled in New York. (Decl. of Smith ¶12.)

Defendant sufficiently shifted the burden to Plaintiff to show that New York would be an unsuitable forum despite Defendant being amenable to process and no procedural bars to a New York court reaching a decision on the merit. (See Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1191.) Plaintiff fails to demonstrate New York would be an unsuitable forum based on his speculative argument that the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) could potentially determine that his failure to raise a compulsory counterclaim earlier in Defendant’s lawsuit would leave him without any forum to seek redress. (Opposition, pg. 3.) Further, Plaintiff provides no evidence to support his argument that Defendant has attempted to evade service of the compulsory counterclaim in her SDNY lawsuit, or more importantly, that he has filed a compulsory counterclaim in the SDNY lawsuit. Further, there is no such factor on the first prong of the instant analysis that considers whether service on the defendant in the alternative forum renders the alternative forum inappropriate.

Second, the totality of the public and private factors support dismissal in favor of a more convenient forum in New York. Here, the evidence and witnesses are located in New York, and the events that are the subject of this action occurred predominantly in New York; there is no showing of any evidence in this matter is tethered to the State of California. (See Complaint.) Further, the burden of having to determine and apply New York law in this Court for choice-of-law analysis and substantively to Plaintiff’s claims is a strong factor favoring dismissal. (See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235, 260 [“the need to apply foreign law pointed towards dismissal”].) The application of New York law in this Court would be especially time-consuming. Finally, California does not have an interest in having the case heard here: the parties’ relationship was entered into in New York; the parties reside in New York; the witnesses reside in New York; New York law applies. (Tucci v. Club Mediterranee, S.A. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 180, 193; Castro v. Budget Rent-a-Car Systems, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1162, 1180-1182.) That forum has an interest in ensuring that the parties are held to the standards set out in its case and statutory law.

This Court should not bear the burden of presiding over this foreign case, in light of this Court’s already congested docket. “[P]reventing court congestion resulting from the trial of foreign causes of action is an important factor in the forum non conveniens analysis.” (Stangvik, 54 Cal.3d at pg. 758.)

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is granted. Plaintiff’s action is dismissed with prejudice.

Defendant’s motion is granted. The instant matter is dismissed with prejudice.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court