Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Daland v. Reynado, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling
TENTATIVE RULING:
Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens
Defendants Wilfrido and Zenaida Reynado move to dismiss this action on the basis of forum non conveniens. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Defendant Wilfrido Reynado (“Mr. Reynado”) breached a contract requiring him to sell real property in the Philippines and distribute the sale proceeds to various members of his family. The agreement provides that:
Distribution of shares will be done in person in the Philippines in local currency. Each and everyone will be responsible for the disposition and remittance of their funds to their own bank account.
(Compl., Ex. 1 at ¶ 3.)
The Complaint alleges that in or around 06/08/2019, Mr. Reynado sold the real property and deposited the sales proceeds, but failed to distribute the proceeds. Mr. Reynado submits a declaration confirming that he sold the property and deposited the entirety of the sums received, less certain incidental costs incurred, into two accounts. (Reynado Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.)
The evidence submitted shows Defendant Wilfrido Reynado, Defendant Zenaido Reynado, and Plaintiff Benjamin A. Dichosa to be residents of the State of California, Defendant Rafael Baylong to be a resident of the State of Texas, Defendant Godofredo Baylong to be a resident of Canada, and Defendant Jose Baylon to be a resident of the Philippines. (Reynado Decl. ¶ 4, B. Dichosa Decl.) The parties submit no evidence regarding the residence(s) of the remaining parties.
Waiver.
“Failure to make a motion [to stay or dismiss for inconvenient forum] at the time of filing a demurrer . . . constitutes a waiver of the issues of . . . inconvenient forum.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(e)(3).)
On 05/25/2022, Defendant Zenaido Reynado (“Ms. Reynado”) filed a demurrer to Plaintiffs’ complaint without objecting to the forum. Therefore, Ms. Reynado waived her right to object to this forum, and the motion by Ms. Reynado is DENIED on those grounds.
Even if Ms. Reynado had not waived the issue, the disposition of the motion would remain the same.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.30(a) provides: “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.”
“The doctrine of inconvenient forum (often referred to as forum non conveniens) allows courts to ‘exercise their discretionary power to decline to proceed in those causes of action which they conclude, on satisfactory evidence, may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.’” (Aghaian v. Minassian (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 603, 609; see also Zhi An Wang v. Fang (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 907, 917.) Plaintiff’s choice of forum generally will not be disturbed unless the court is convinced that: (1) a suitable alternative forum exists; and (2) the balance of private and public interest factors make it “just” that the litigation proceed in the alternative forum. (See Dendy v. MGM Grand Hotels, Inc. (1982) Cal.App.3d 457, 460.) A suitable alternative forum means one in which a valid judgment may be obtained. “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. The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, 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 weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 751 and fn. 3.)
Generally, the 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 Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 933, fn. 15.)
The doctrine of forum non conveniens is not jurisdictional. (In re Christopher B. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 551, 557.) “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 transitory actions, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law and subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial in the action . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395(a).)
Here, Moving Defendants fail to show the Philippine courts to be a suitable alternative forum. Defendants argue that Philippine courts have been found to be a suitable forum in other cases (Mot. at 4:23-5:2), but make no showing that the Philippine courts are a suitable forum in this case.
The alleged breach of contract occurred over three years ago, which may implicate a statute of limitations under Philippine law. In addition, Moving Defendants made no showing that the Philippine courts would have personal jurisdiction over the parties. It is undisputed that several parties reside outside the Philippines, including Plaintiff Benjamin A. Dichosa and all defendants except for Jose Baylon. Moving Defendants provide no Philippine authority providing the courts jurisdiction over these non-resident parties.
Plaintiffs’ evidentiary objection no. 8 is SUSTAINED. The remainder of the objections were not material to the disposition of this motion.
Plaintiffs to give notice.
Motion to Quash Service of Summons
Specially appearing defendants Jose Baylon, Godofredo Baylon, and Rafael Baylon move to quash service of summons. For the following reasons, the motion is GRANTED.
As an initial matter, the court notes the motion is untimely (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a)(1)), but finds good cause to consider the untimely motion given the strong due process implications and Plaintiffs’ failure to object to the motion on the grounds of untimeliness.
A nonresident defendant has a liberty interest in not being subject to the judgments of a forum with which he or she has established no meaningful minimum contacts. (See Hensa v. Denckla (1958) 357 U.S. 235, 251; Vons Companies Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 445 [citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 471-472].)
The plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all jurisdictional requirements are met. (Ziller Electronics Lab GmbH v. Super. Ct. (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232.) If the plaintiff establishes that the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum state, the burden shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that the exercise of jurisdiction would be unreasonable. (Stone v. Texas (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1048.)
Personal jurisdiction may be general or specific. A nonresident defendant may be subject to general jurisdiction if his or her contacts with the forum are substantial, continuous and systematic. (Id., at p. 445, citing Perkins v. Benguet Mining Co. (1952) 342 U.S. 437, 445.)
“Specific jurisdiction [on the other hand] is different: It covers defendants less intimately connected with a State, but only as to a narrower class of claims. The contacts needed for this kind of jurisdiction often go by the name ‘purposeful availment.’” (Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Ct. (2021) 141 S. Ct. 1017, 1024 [quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 475]; see also Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 447 [holding the state may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident who purposefully avails himself or herself of the forum’s benefits because the state has a manifest interest in providing its residents with a forum for redressing injuries inflicted by out-of-state actors, and where individuals derive economic benefit from interstate activities it would be unfair to allow them to escape having to account in other states for the consequences that arise from such activities].)
“A court may exercise specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if: (1) the defendant has purposefully availed himself or herself of forum benefits; (2) the controversy is related to or ‘arises out of’ [the] defendant's contacts with the forum; and (3) the assertion of personal jurisdiction would comport with ‘fair play and substantial justice.’” (Anglo Irish Bank Corp., PLC v. Super. Ct. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 969, 978 [citations and quotation marks omitted]; Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 477-478.)
Lastly, the assertion of jurisdiction over the defendant must also be reasonable—that is, comport with fair play and substantial justice. (Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at pp. 477-478.)
Here, Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden to show Moving Defendants have minimum contacts with the state justifying this court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over them. Jose Baylon lives and works in the Philippines. (J. Baylon Decl. ¶ 4.) Godofredo Baylon lives and works in Ontario, Canada. (G. Baylon Decl. ¶ 4.) Rafael Baylon lives in Houston, Texas. (R. Baylon Decl. ¶ 4.) None of the Moving Defendants owns or has ever owned any real property in California. (G. Baylon Decl. ¶ 4). Further, none of the Moving Defendants executed the Letter Agreement at issue in this action. (G. Baylon Decl. ¶ 2; J. Baylon Decl. ¶ 2; R. Baylon Decl. ¶ 2; see Compl., Ex. 1.)
Plaintiffs argue that service of process alone is sufficient to confer jurisdiction over these defendants because they have been joined as necessary or indispensable parties under Code of Civil Procedure sections 382 and 389. Plaintiffs’ arguments are not supported by the cited statutes.
Code of Civil Procedure Section 382 relates to permissive joinder and provides that: “If the consent of any one who should have been joined as plaintiff cannot be obtained, he may be made a defendant, the reason thereof being stated in the complaint; and when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is impracticable to bring them all before the court, one or more may sue or defend for the benefit of all.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 382.) This statute does not provide an exception to the constitutional requirement of minimum contacts. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 410.10.)
Section 389(a) relates to compulsory joinder and provides in relevant part that: “A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may . . . impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or . . . leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring . . . inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 389(a).) This statute also does not provide an exception to the constitutional requirement of minimum contacts. Plaintiffs’ argument that the court has discretion to deem Moving Defendants indispensable parties contradicts the express terms of the statute, which applies only to “a person who is subject to service of process.”
Specially appearing defendants to give notice.