Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2023-00007431-CU-PL-CTL, Date: 2023-09-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - September 26, 2023

09/29/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Product Liability Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00007431-CU-PL-CTL PROCOPIO GIMENEZ VS GUNNAR OPTIKS LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Dismiss, 08/28/2023

The Motion (ROA # 41) of Defendant GUNNAR OPTIKS LLC ('Defendant') to dismiss or in the alternative stay action by Plaintiff GASTON EZEQUIEL PROCOPIO GIMENEZ ('Plaintiff'), is DENIED.

Defendant's Request (ROA # 40) for judicial notice is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court takes judicial notice of the date only on which Exh. 1 was filed with the Court; otherwise, the Request is DENIED.

Defendant, on or before the last day to file a responsive pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. Code Civ. Proc. 418.10(a).

'[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.' Code Civ. Proc. 410.30(a).

'The provisions of Section 418.10 do not apply to a motion to stay or dismiss the action by a defendant who has made a general appearance.' Id. at (b).

Under section 410.30(b), 'a defendant who has generally appeared may make a forum non conveniens motion at any time, not only on or before the last day to plead.' Britton v. Dallas Airmotive, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal. App. 4th 127, 133.

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.

In determining whether to grant a motion based on forum non conveniens, the Court must first determine whether the alternate forum is a 'suitable' place for trial. Id. 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. 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. Id. Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3013313 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PROCOPIO GIMENEZ VS GUNNAR OPTIKS LLC [IMAGED]  37-2023-00007431-CU-PL-CTL The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening the Court 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. Id. Defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof. Id. '... [T]he inquiry is not whether Michigan provides a better forum than does California, but whether California is a seriously inconvenient forum.' Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995) 35 Cal. App. 4th 604, 611.

In this case, Defendant argues this action should be heard in the federal District Court in California; i.e., the local federal court is a more convenient forum. Given this argument, section 410.30 does not apply because Defendant does not contend that this action should be 'heard in a forum outside this state.' Arguably, section 418.10 also does not afford any relief because Defendant's previous filings may constitute a general appearance and the last day to file a responsive pleading has passed. However, even if section 418.10 could provide relief, Defendant has not satisfied its burden of proof, as discussed below.

Defendant has made no showing that the federal District Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Even if the related class action lawsuit remains in federal court (a removal motion is pending), no legal authority is cited for the proposition that this automatically confers jurisdiction over this action.

Thus, Defendant has not satisfied its burden of demonstrating that the federal court offers a 'suitable' place for trial.

There is no evidence that transferring this action to federal court would make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing judgment more expeditious and inexpensive, or would make access to sources of proof easier, or would reduce the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses, etc.

There is no evidence that state court is overburdened or congested. The local community of state court jurors has, at least, an equal interest and concern given that Defendant is a limited liability company organized in California and is physically located within California.

Finally, Defendant argues this action must be abated because another action is pending given the related class action lawsuit that has been removed to federal court (pending the motion for remand).

Even assuming this contention is correct, this is not a recognized basis for a motion to stay or dismiss based on an inconvenient forum.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3013313