Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 20STCV43007, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV43007    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On November 10, 2020, Plaintiffs Jeffrey Lawrence Solomon and Lynn Soderquist-Solomon initiated this action for products liability and negligence against Defendants Oxgord Incorporated and Day to Day Imports Inc.

            Plaintiff Jeffrey Solomon fell from a ladder that he purchased from Defendants. The accident occurred in Idaho, where Plaintiffs reside, and Plaintiffs were treated in Idaho. There is one other witness to the incident, who also lives in Idaho. Defendants have their principal place of business in California.

            On March 30, 2023, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing that the case should be tried in Idaho. The Court denied the motion on April 28, 2023. Defendants thereafter filed a petition for writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal. Pending the appeal, Defendants seek an order staying the action and continuing or vacating the trial date.

            Defendants filed the motion to continue trial date on August 30, 2023, and the motion to stay action on September 11, 2023. Plaintiffs filed their oppositions on September 20, 2023. Defendants filed their replies on September 27, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

            “Courts have inherent authority to control their own calendars and dockets . . . .” (Walker v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 257, 267.) This includes “the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.” (Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489.) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Ct., Rule 3.1332(c).)

DISCUSSION

            Defendants argue that a stay and trial continuance are warranted because the Court of Appeal may reverse this Court’s ruling and order the case tried in Idaho. Defendants argue that the parties should not waste time and resources litigating a case that may ultimately be moved to Idaho.

            A forum non conveniens motion is reviewed on abuse of discretion. (National Football League v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 918.) Under this standard, a trial court is afforded “substantial deference.” (Ibid.) The ruling only needs to be supported by a “reasonable or even fairly debatable justification.” (Ibid.) Here, the Court articulated two independent bases for its ruling: (1) Defendant unreasonably delayed in bringing the motion (see Britton v. Dallas, Inc. (1997) 153 Cal.App.4th 127, 135); and (2) the public and private factors weighed in favor of trial in California (see Delfosse v. C.A.C.I., Inc.-Federal (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 683, 688). The Court is not inclined to further delay a case that is unlikely to be transferred to Idaho. In other words, a stay would not be in the interests of justice or judicial efficiency.  This case is already three years old.

            Defendants also have not demonstrated undue prejudice if the case is not stayed. Defendants take issue with basic discovery and motion burdens present in every litigation. In fact, as the Court noted in its April 28 ruling, Defendants have already engaged in extensive substantive discovery. Defendants litigated the case for nearly a year without complaint. Having exploited California discovery procedures for their own benefit, Defendants now seek to prevent Plaintiffs from litigating in California. This is not well-taken. Defendants’ concern about duplicative efforts is also belied by the fact that they plan on continuing discovery even while the writ petition is reviewed. (See Mtn. to Continue Trial 5:18-21; Reply 4:3-5.)  

            Defendants argue that they need time to focus on the writ petition, but the Court of Appeal has not invited further briefing and may never do so. The additional burden from litigating this case and the writ petition simultaneously does not constitute sufficient prejudice, as Defendants chose to file the writ petition. The reviewing court can order a stay if it believes that one is necessary, as demonstrated by Defendants’ own caselaw. (See Frisk v. Superior Court (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 402, 413; Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1055, 1073; Morrisette v. Superior Court of Kern County (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 597, 602-03; Franchise Tax Board v. Municipal Court for Los Angeles Judicial Dist. (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 377, 384.)

            In sum, the Court does not find that a stay is in the interests of justice, nor does the Court find good cause to continue the trial. The Court therefore declines to exercise its discretion to do either.  

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ motions to continue trial and stay action are DENIED.