Judge James A. Mangione, Case 37-2022-00049536-CU-MC-CTL 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00049536-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 26, 2023

10/27/2023 09:00:00 AM C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Misc Complaints - Other Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00049536-CU-MC-CTL COMAXIM SA DE CV VS CEBALLOS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Idalia Ceballos's Motion to Stay or Dismiss on Grounds of Forum Non Conveniens is conditionally granted.

The Court finds it appropriate to adjudicate this case on Forum Non Conveniens grounds and denies Defendant's request to rule on her Demurrer first.

'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.' (Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1519, 1528 (quotation marks omitted).) 'An alternative forum is suitable if it has jurisdiction and the action in that forum will not be barred by the statute of limitations. . . . The defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof to show the proposed alternative forum satisfies these requirements.' (Id. at 1529 (quotation marks and alterations omitted).) 'It is well settled under California law that the moving parties satisfy their burden on the threshold suitability issue by stipulating to submit to the jurisdiction of the alternative forum and to waive any applicable statute of limitations.' (Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1190.) Plaintiff argues that 'the courts of Sonora, Mexico ('Sonora') would hypothetically have jurisdiction over this matter based on Comaxim being based there' and that Sonoma is not a suitable alternative forum because it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and has a two-year statute of limitations for the types of claims at issue. (ROA 34, pg. 3.) However, Defendant has filed a declaration agreeing to stipulate to jurisdiction of Mexico and waiving any applicable statute of limitations. (ROA 12, ¶ 12.) Although Defendant does not concede that 'the courts of the state of Sonora would have jurisdiction over her,' she concedes that the court of Mexico would have jurisdiction over her because she is a Mexican citizen and will stipulate to service of process there. (RIA 36, pg. 5.) The Court interprets this to mean that Defendant will stipulate to service of process in whichever Mexican state is the proper venue. This is sufficient to establish Mexico is a suitable alternative forum. Furthermore, as noted below, the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter during the parallel proceedings in Mexico. As such, Plaintiff will have recourse to address any issues raised if Defendant refuses to stipulate to the jurisdiction of the Mexican state court.

The Court now turns to the private and public interest factors. '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 Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2948550 18 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: COMAXIM SA DE CV VS CEBALLOS [IMAGED] 37-2022-00049536-CU-MC-CTL of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses. Plaintiff argues that it is aware of 'several dozen documents and four witnesses in this matter, none of which are located in' Sonora. (ROA 34, pg.

7.) However, Plaintiff has submitted no evidence to support this assertion. Indeed, the allegedly wrongful sale of the trademark to another Mexican corporation, which Defendant owns and controls, took place in Mexico and the trademark is registered in Mexico. Plaintiff's primary argument is that Defendant does not have any significant assets in Mexico, and it would therefore be required to seek enforcement of any judgment under California's Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act. Setting aside the speculations as to Defendant's Mexican assets, there is no basis for the Court to conclude that enforcing a potential future judgment under a recognized procedural scheme will be more complicated or expensive than adjudicating the entire case. This is especially true here, given that nearly all documents will need to be translated by a certified translator and the parties dispute the proper governing law.

Therefore, the private factors weigh in favor of adjudicating this matter in Mexico.

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.) Here, Plaintiff asserts that California has an interest in deterring its residents from engaging in wrongful conduct. While true, this interest is shared where, as here, Defendant is a dual national. Furthermore, Mexico has a significantly greater interest in the operation of businesses incorporated there and in the alleged theft of intellectual property registered there. California's interest in adjudicating this case is minimal given that the parties, allegedly wrongful conduct and property at issue are all located in and subject to the laws of Mexico. Therefore, the public interest factors weigh in favor of adjudicating this matter in Mexico.

The Court chooses to stay the instant action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, rather than dismiss it. (See Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1382 (finding an abuse of discretion where trial court dismissed, rather than stayed, a case in which granting of forum non conveniens was conditioned on stipulation to accept alternative court's jurisdiction).) As stated above, the Court's order is conditioned upon Defendant submitting to the jurisdiction of the courts of Mexico and waiving any defense based on statute of limitations.

Plaintiff's evidentiary objections are overruled as to objection nos. 1, 8-10 and 14-16 and sustained as to objection nos. 2-7, 11-13 and 17-19. Defendant's objections to the declaration of Juan Ygnacio Reyes Retana are overruled. Defendant's objections to the declaration of Pedro I. Dabdoub-Valenzuela are sustained as to objection numbers 1-2, 1-77, 15 and 19-20 and overruled as to objection nos. 3-6, 12-14 and 16-18.

Defendant's Demurrer is ordered off-calendar, all pending hearing dates are vacated and a status conference is set for April 19, 2024 at 9:45 a.m.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

2948550 18