Judge: Gregory Keosian, Case: 22STCV27001, Date: 2023-08-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV27001    Hearing Date: August 21, 2023    Dept: 61

Defendants Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, Awesome Doughnut, LLC, Great Circle Family Foods, LLC, and W.K.S. Krispy Kreme, LLC’s Motion to Change Venue due to Forum Non Conveniens, is DENIED.

I.                   INCONVENIENT FORUM

 “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.)

“So long as there is jurisdiction and no statute of limitations bar, a forum is suitable where an action can be brought, although not necessarily won.” (Aghaian v. Minassian (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 427, 431.) For another forum to be suitable, it must be able to exercise jurisdiction over all defendants. (See American Cemwood Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 431, 438–39.)

Defendants Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation, Awesome Doughnut, LLC, Great Circle Family Foods, LLC, and W.K.S. Krispy Kreme, LLC (Defendants) move for an order directing that the venue of this matter be changed from Los Angeles County to the Eighth Judicial District Court, Regional Justice Center Court in Las Vegas, Nevada, on the grounds that the present forum is inconvenient for the prosecution of this action.

Defendants note that this action arises from a vehicle-pedestrian collision that occurred in Clark County, Nevada. (Motion at pp. 7–8.) Defendants argue that many witnesses pertinent to the case — the driver, Jeffrey Dungo; Dungo’s supervisor at W.K.S. Krispy Kreme, LLC; the law enforcement personnel who investigated the collision; and the Clark County Coroner’s office personnel — all reside in Nevada. (Motion at p. 4.) Defendants argue that non-party witnesses may refuse to appear in person for trial in Los Angeles, thus hindering the jury’s ability to evaluate their testimony. (Motion at p. 8.) Defendants further argue that many of the witnesses, such as law enforcement officers and coroner’s personnel, are public officials, and requiring them to travel from their homes in Nevada would deprive that state of their services for a greater amount of time. (Motion at pp. 8–9.) Defendants finally argue that Plaintiffs themselves are residents of Riverside and San Bernardino County, California, and not Los Angeles County where they have elected to try this matter. (Motion at pp. 4–5.)

Plaintiffs in opposition note that they are California residents, whose election of trial in this state is entitled to a strong presumption. (Opposition at pp. 3–4.) Moreover, they argue that Defendants have failed to establish that Nevada is a suitable forum for the present action, as they have made no showing as to that state’s jurisdiction over the Defendants, or the availability of a defense based on Nevada’s statute of limitations. (Opposition at pp. 4–5.) Plaintiffs argue that insofar as witnesses reside in Clark County, and therefore more than 150 miles away from the place of trial, their depositions may be admitted into evidence under Code of Civil Procedure § 2025.620, subd. (c)(1). (Opposition at p. 5.) Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants are corporations either conducting business in the state of California or having their principal place of business located therein, and therefore a judgment entered in California would have the greatest possibility of enforcement. (Opposition at pp. 4–6.) Plaintiffs finally argue that California has a public strong interest in allowing its residents a forum for the redress of grievances. (Opposition at p. 6.)

Defendants have not shown that a stay or dismissal of this action based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens is appropriate.[1] Defendants do not contest that Plaintiffs are California residents, and are therefore entitled to a strong presumption in favor of their home forum. (See National Football League, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 917.) Moreover, Defendants have not carried their burden to demonstrate that Nevada is a suitable forum for this action, save by reference to the convenience of witnesses. Suitability of a forum, however, is determined by the alternative forum’s jurisdiction over the parties and the potential availability of a statute of limitations defense, neither of which Defendants address in the present motion. (See Aghaian, supra, 234 Cal.App.4th at p. 431.)

The motion is therefore DENIED.