Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 20STCV31454, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV31454    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendant Sky Bus, SAC’s Motion for Stay and Transfer is DENIED.

I.      MOTION TO COORDINATE AND STAY

Defendant Sky Bus, SAC (Defendant) moves to stay the present action and order it coordinated with an action pending in Florida state court on similar subject matter, ACA International, LLC v. Skybus Jet Cargo, Inc. (RJN Exh. B.) Defendant argues that this and the Florida action share “a common question of fact or law” such that this court should stay this action, and order it transferred and consolidated with the Florida action. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 404.1.)

Plaintiff in opposition argues that Defendant’s motion is inconsistent with the arguments made by Skybus Jet Cargo, Inc. in the Florida action, which has sought to stay or dismiss that action on jurisdictional grounds, heretofore without success. (Opposition at pp. 2–13.)

The motion is defective. Defendant seeks a stay and transfer under Code of Civil Procedure § 404.1, which describes the criteria for determining if coordination of cases currently proceeding in different courts in California is appropriate. However, a basic premise of the coordination statutes, as with the rest of California’s Code of Civil Procedure, is that it applies to proceedings conducted in this state. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 4 [“The Code establishes the law of this State respecting the subjects to which it relates”].) The Florida court is not subject to California’s Code of Civil Procedure, or to the authority of California’s Judicial Council pursuant to which this action would be coordinated. (Code Civ. Proc. § 403.)

Defendant’s motion sounds less in California’s statutes for the coordination of actions among its own counties than the doctrine of forum non conveniens. “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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 410.30, subd. (a).)

In determining whether to grant 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. 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 v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) The party moving for forum non conveniens bears the initial burden of establishing the propriety of dismissal. (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff is a California resident, the ‘plaintiff's choice of a forum should rarely be disturbed unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant.” (National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Company (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 917.)

Here, Defendant has not demonstrated entitlement to a stay or dismissal under the forum non conveniens doctrine. Defendant has not shown that Florida is a suitable forum for this dispute, as Defendant has neither attested to Florida’s jurisdiction over itself, or offered to submit itself to that state’s jurisdiction. Nor has Defendant offered argument as to the statute of limitations or its willingness to waive it. (See Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 752 [other forum was suitable when the party seeking dismissal offered to submit to jurisdiction and stipulate to the tolling of the limitations period].) Indeed, the contract pursuant to which Plaintiff brings this action contains a forum selection clause designating Los Angles as the appropriate forum. (Opposition RJN Exh. 11.)

Accordingly, the motion for a stay and transfer is DENIED.