Judge: Gary I. Micon, Case: 23CHCV01660, Date: 2024-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV01660    Hearing Date: May 15, 2024    Dept: F43

Dept. F43

Date: 5-15-24

Case #23CHCV01660, Rhiannon Claire Thomas vs. Roya Mohammadi

Trial Date: N/A

MOTION TO STAY OR DISMISS THIS ACTION

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Roya Mohammadi

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Rhiannon Claire Thomas

RELIEF REQUESTED

Defendant has requested that the Court stay or dismiss this action for forum non conveniens.

RULING: Motion is granted.

SUMMARY OF ACTION

This action involves a plane crash that occurred in the Bahamas. The plane was in route from Long Island, Bahamas, to New Providence, Bahamas, when it crashed shortly after takeoff. The aircraft was owned by and operated with the implied and express consent of Defendant Roya Mohammadi (Defendant). Defendant also selected and approved the pilot that was flying on the day of the accident. Defendant is a resident of Los Angeles County, California, and the aircraft is registered in the United States. The plane crashed about 2 nautical miles from the airport in Long Island, Bahamas.

After the crash, the pilot and five of the passengers were able to exit the aircraft. Another passenger was ejected on impact and later succumbed to her injuries. Plaintiff in this case, Rhiannon Claire Thomas (Plaintiff), was a passenger and alleges that she suffered physical and emotional injuries. Plaintiff is a resident of the Bahamas. The pilot and other passengers were also residents of the Bahamas.

On June 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action in California because Defendant is a resident of California. On August 8, 2023, Defendant filed this motion to stay or dismiss the action pursuant to the forum non conveniens doctrine. Defendant argues in her motion that all of the conditions for dismissing an action based on the forum non conveniens doctrine are present here: the Bahamas is a suitable alternative forum, and a balancing of the private and public interest justifies granting the motion. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff is forum shopping.

In Plaintiff’s opposition filed on January 1, 2024, Plaintiff argues that the action should not be dismissed pursuant to the forum non conveniens doctrine. She argues that the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public justify retaining the action in California. Plaintiff also argues that California law governs this action and that the doctrine of comity is not applicable in this case.

Defendant’s reply, filed on January 9, 2024, argues that the private and public interests balance in favor of Defendant and that California law does not govern this action.

ANALYSIS

Defendant’s Evidentiary Objections to Plaintiff’s Opposition:

            Sustained: 2, 4, 5, 9, 15

            Overruled: 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

Staying or dismissing a case based on forum non conveniens is allowable under CCP § 410.30, which provides that “When a court upon motion of a party…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).) Furthermore, “A defendant…may serve and file a notice of motion…to stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.” (CCP § 418.10(a)(2).)

“On a motion for forum non conveniens, the defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof.” (Stangvik V. Shiley, Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) Forum non conveniens is “an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction” when it “may be more appropriately justly tried elsewhere.” (Id.) In ruling on a motion based on forum non conveniens, “A court must first determine whether the alternate forum is a ‘suitable’ place for trial. If it is, the next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action for trial in California. (Id.)

            Suitability of the Alternative Forum

Suitability of the alternative forum is determined by considering whether the alternative forum has jurisdiction over the defendant and by seeing whether the statute of limitations would bar the plaintiff’s cause of action in the alternative forum. (Stangvik, 54 Cal.3d at 752.) Suitability is not determined by whether the law in the alternative forum may be less favorable to the plaintiff (see Guimei v. Gen. Elec. Co. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 689, 696 [finding that an alternative forum is suitable unless it “provides no remedy at all”]) or by the availability of a jury trial (see Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2011 195 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1530).

An additional factor in favor of the suitability of an alternative forum is the existence of parallel pending litigation in that jurisdiction. (St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1.)

In this case, Defendant has submitted a declaration in support of her motion in which she expressly agrees to the jurisdiction of courts in the Bahamas and agrees to waive any statute of limitations defense which might be raised in the Bahamas if this motion is granted. (Mohammadi Decl., ¶ 2 [sic].) Additionally, Defendant has submitted evidence that there are three lawsuits pending against her in the Bahamas arising out of the same June 5, 2022, aircraft crash that is the subject of this lawsuit. (Chambers Decl., ¶ 2, Exs. A, B, and C.)

In her opposition, Plaintiff does not appear to dispute the suitability of the Bahamas as an alternative forum. Instead, she focuses on the private and public interests involved.

The Court finds that the Bahamas would be a suitable alternative forum.

            Private and Public Interests

In looking at the private and public interests, the Stangvik Court outlines the following:

“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, 54 Cal.3d at 751; see also Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235, 259-261.) Additionally, while there is “ordinarily a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum,” the U.S. Supreme Court held that a foreign plaintiff’s choice deserves less deference than the choice of a resident. (Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 255.)

Also, courts have held that “‘with respect to regulating or affecting conduct within its borders, the place of the wrong has the predominant interest.’” (Roman v. Liberty University, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 670, 684, quoting Hernandez v. Burger (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 785, 802.)

There is no question that the aircraft crash occurred in the Bahamas. Plaintiff, the other passengers, and the pilot are all residents of the Bahamas. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Authority of The Bahamas investigated the crash. Plaintiff, by her own admission, received medical treatment in the Bahamas.

While Defendant is a resident of California and the aircraft was registered in the U.S., it is not immediately apparent what interest potential Los Angeles County jurors or the Los Angeles County community at large would have in a plane crash that occurred in the Bahamas, particularly when all those involved in the crash were residents of the Bahamas. The Bahamas would have a much greater interest in this case than California, as the crash occurred within its borders.

Furthermore, most of the potential witnesses and evidence are in the Bahamas. While Plaintiff has indicated that she would stipulate to a video or live deposition of any of the witnesses in the Bahamas, subpoenaing such witnesses would be difficult, if not impossible. Plaintiff has also agreed to provide her medical records during discovery so that it is unnecessary to call any of the doctors that she saw in the Bahamas to testify, but those doctors would be needed in order to authenticate Plaintiff’s medical records.

Plaintiff also argues that all the evidence necessary for this case is in the U.S., but provides no evidence to substantiate this statement. Plaintiff makes a lot of assertions about what she would provide during discovery or how she would produce witnesses, but unless the witnesses can be subpoenaed, there is no guarantee that they would appear.

Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the public and private interests weigh in favor of moving this case to the Bahamas.

CONCLUSION

Defendant has demonstrated that the Bahamas is a suitable alternative forum and that the private and public interests weigh in favor of the Bahamas.

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to stay the case pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens is granted. The action is stayed pending a status report showing that an action was filed in the Bahamas and that Defendant accepted jurisdiction and waived any statute of limitations defense. The date for the status report will be set at the hearing on this motion.

Moving party to give notice.