Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 23STCV13382, Date: 2023-11-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13382    Hearing Date: November 8, 2023    Dept: 37

HEARING DATE:                 Wednesday, November 08, 2023

CASE NUMBER:                   23STCV13382

CASE NAME:                        Turesa Wilcox v. Harbor UCLA Medical Center, et al.

MOVING PARTY:                 Defendant ATC Healthcare Services, LLC

OPPOSING PARTY:             Plaintiff Turesa Wilcox

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set

PROOF OF SERVICE:           OK

PROCEEDING:                      Motion to Dismiss Due to Forum Non Conveniens

OPPOSITION:                        27 October 2023

REPLY:                                  01 November 2023

TENTATIVE:                         Defendant ATC’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.

Background

On June 12, 2023, Plaintiff filed this representative PAGA action against Harbor UCLA Medical Center Guild, Inc.; ATC Healthcare Services LLC (“ATC”) and Does 1 to 100.

On September 18, 2023, Defendant ATC moved to dismiss or stay the action based on forum non conveniens. Plaintiff opposes the motion. The matter is now before the court.

Motion to Dismiss Due to Forum Non Conveniens

I.         Legal Standard

A defendant may move to stay or dismiss an action on grounds of inconvenient forum.¿(CCP § 418.10(a)(2).)¿¿The doctrine of forum¿non¿conveniens¿is codified in Code of Civil Procedure, section 410.30. (Animal Film, LLC v. D.E.J. Prods., Inc.¿(2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 466, 471 (Animal Film).)¿Code of Civil Procedure, section 410.30, subdivision (a) provides: “[w]hen 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).)¿¿ 

“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, supra, 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 472.)¿¿¿ 

II.        Request for Judicial Notice

The Court may take judicial notice of records of any court of record of the United States. (Evid. Code, § 452(d)(2).) However, the court may only judicially notice the existence of the record, not that its contents are the truth. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1565.) 

Defendant ATC requests judicial notice of the following:

1)     A March 1, 2023 complaint filed Turesa Wilcox v. Harbor UCLA Medical Center Guild, Inc., et al., No. 23STCV04472 (Los Angeles Cty. Sup. Ct. Mar. 1, 2023), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2)     An April 15, 2023 notice of removal filed Turesa Wilcox v. Harbor UCLA Medical Center Guild, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02802 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2023), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

3)     An August 14, 2023 order entered in Turesa Wilcox v. Harbor UCLA Medical Center Guild, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02802 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2023), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

4)     An August 28, 2023 first amended complaint entered in Turesa Wilcox v. Harbor UCLA Medical Center Guild, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02802 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2023), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

Defendant ATC’s request for judicial notice is granted.

III.      Discussion

Defendant ATC requests that this present action be stayed or dismissed pursuant to CCP § 410.30 because Plaintiff had already filed a class action complaint for unpaid wages on March 01, 2023, in “Wilcox 1” entitled Turesa Wilcox v. Harbor UCLA Medical Center Guild, Inc., et al., (LASC Case No. 23STCV04472). (RJN Ex. 1.)

Plaintiff has now filed this present action, Wilcox II, after ATC removed Wilcox I to federal court in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (“Central District”). (RJN Ex. 2.) Defendant ATC argues that because Plaintiff may amend Wilcox I to add a PAGA claim, this action is duplicative litigation, there is a risk of inconsistent rulings, and the interest of substantial justice supports a finding that the action should be heard in another forum and this action should be stayed or dismissed.

A.        Defendant ATC’s Motion is Timely

CCP § 418.10(a)(2) provides that “[a] defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion . . . [t]o stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.”  

Accordingly, Defendant ATC was not required to file a demurrer along with its motion to dismiss or stay the action due to forum non conveniens. ATC represents that on July 26, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel granted ATC a 15-day extension to fila responsive pleading. (Reply at p. 7.) Five days before the responsive pleading was due, Wilcox 1 was removed to federal court, leading ATC to have a new basis to demurrer to Wilcox II. Because the parties could not meaningfully meet and confer within the statutory period, ATC filed CIV-141 seeking an automatic 30-day extension to file a responsive pleading. (CCP § 430.41(a)(2).) Defendant ATC filed this Motion on September 18, 2023, on the last day of its time to plead. (CCP § 418.10(a)(2); see also Olinick v. BMG Entertainment (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1286, 1296.)

The Motion is timely, and the court will consider the motion on its merits.

B.        An Alternative Forum is Appropriate

“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 (Stangvik).)  The moving party bears the burden of proof on a motion for forum non conveniens. (Id. at p. 751.) The first part of the analysis in determining whether an action should be dismissed or stayed due to being filed in an inconvenient forum is whether a suitable alternative forum exists.¿ (See id. at p. 752; National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 918.)¿

“The threshold issue of suitability of the alternative forum is . . . determined by a two-pronged test: There must be jurisdiction over the defendant and the assurance that the action will not be barred by a statute of limitations.”  (Shiley Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 126, 133.) The alternative forum is “suitable” if its law provides a remedy for the claim sued upon. It is sufficient that the action can be brought, although not necessarily won, in the alternative forum. (Guimei v. General Elec. Co. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 689, 696; Roman v. Liberty Univ., Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.4th 670, 683.)

Defendant ATC sufficiently shows that the Central District where Wilcox I is being heard is a suitable alternative forum for Plaintiff’s representative PAGA action. The parties have already participated in a discovery plan pursuant to Rule 26(f) in Wilcox I. Moreover, the Central District has original jurisdiction over wage-and-hour claims asserted in Wilcox I that arise out of the same facts as Wilcox II’s PAGA claims. Moreover, PAGA’s one-year statute of limitations for PAGA claims does not bar the Central District from adjudicating Plaintiff’s PAGA claim. Thus, the Central District remains a suitable form for this action.

Furthermore, Plaintiff fails to show that Central District refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s PAGA claim. Although there is a presumption in favor of plaintiff’s choice of forum, the presumption is not conclusive and all parties in this action are residents of California. (Stangvic, supra, 54 Cal.3d. at p. 756.) Here, all witnesses, documents, and evidence are located in California, the forum state of both Wilcox I and Wilcox II.

Defendant ATC has shown that the Central District is a suitable forum for Plaintiff’s present action and Plaintiff has failed to rebut this showing.

C.        Both Private and Public Interest Weigh in Favor of Alternative Forum

The second factor the court considers is the private and public interests of the litigation, including “the enforceability of the ensuing judgment expeditious and relatively inexpensive,” including (1) “the ease of access to sources of proof,” (2) the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses,” and (3) the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) “The public interest factors 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.” (Ibid.)

Defendant ATC asserts that the Central District is the appropriate forum because the parties can easily access any sources of proof and face minimal costs arising from obtaining the attendance of witnesses, and because the facts in this case arose from Wilcox I, the parties will rely on the same evidence. Moreover, the forum for both Wilcox I and II remains Los Angeles County. The Central District will also apply California substantive law to Plaintiff’s PAGA claims if Plaintiff chooses to amend the Complaint in Wilcox I to add a PAGA claim. Lastly, Defendant ATC asserts that it may be prejudiced if this action proceeds and is not stayed or dismissed because there is a risk of inconsistent rulings.

In opposition, Plaintiff fails to show that public interest factors weigh against staying or dismissing this action. Plaintiff argues that keeping this present action would lessen the congestion at the Central District and reduce additional administration of the case, but state courts are also similarly congested and judicial economy favors that finding that the Central District is adequately equipped to handle this case and has already expended resources in adjudicating Wilcox I. Moreover, discovery is underway in Wilcox I which will encompass the same facts and evidence as Wilcox II. Secondly, the judicial pool of both the Central District and this court is the same such that the interests of the public are adequately represented. In adjudicating the PAGA claim, the Central District will apply California substantive law. Therefore, Plaintiff fails to show that the private interest and public interest weigh in favor of denying Defendant ATC’s motion.

Accordingly, Defendant ATC’s motion is granted, and the action is dismissed.

Conclusion

Defendant ATC’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.

Defendant to give notice.