Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV07392, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV07392    Hearing Date: February 27, 2024    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE ]ORDER RE MOTION TO STAY FOR INCONVENIENT FORUM

            Plaintiffs Sharon Teffeteller, David Teffeteller, and Jason Teffeteller allege Jerry Teffeteller was exposed to asbestos from Defendant Chattem Inc.’s products while living in Texas.  Defendant moves to stay this case in favor of litigation in Texas.

“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.)  When a court finds “in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state,” it “shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.30(a).)

Under the traditional forum non conveniens analysis, a court must first “determine whether a suitable alternative forum exists.”  (National Football League v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 917.)  A suitable alternative forum is one where the defendant is subject to jurisdiction (or otherwise stipulates) and the statute of limitations would not bar the plaintiff's case in that forum.  (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 752 n.3.)  Generally the moving party must show that all defendants are subject to the other state’s jurisdiction.  (American Cemwood Corporation v. American Home Assurance Company (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 431, 440.)  However, a court may stay a case to allow the plaintiff to determine if all of the defendants are subject to jurisdiction in the other state.  If not, then the plaintiff may return to California and request the stay be lifted.  (Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 753, 758.) 

If there is a suitable alternative forum, the court proceeds to the next step of balancing “the private interests of the parties and the public interest in keeping the case in California.”  (National Football League, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at 917.)  These factors must be balanced flexibly, and no single factor should be unduly emphasized.  (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal. 3d at 753.)  An action should “be dismissed or stayed if a suitable alternative exists and the balance of private and public interest factors weigh in favor of the litigation proceeding in an alternative forum.”  (Hansen, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 758.)

“[T]he defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof on a motion based on forum non conveniens.”  (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 751.)  The court is not required to accept the allegations in the complaint as true, but rather, “must consider and review all the declarations, papers and data which are submitted in connection with the motion[.]”  (Hemmelgarn v. Boeing Co. (1980) 106 Cal. App. 3d 576, 587.)

            Defendant argues Texas is a suitable alternative forum because Jerry Teffeteller lived there from 1975 to his death.  (Motion at p. 3.)  Defendant states there is no statute of limitation bar in Texas.  (Motion at p. 7.)  Defendant asserts all defendants are subject to Texas’s personal jurisdiction.  (Motion at p. 8.) 

            Currently twenty-five defendants remain in this case – Armstrong International, Inc.; Block Drug Company, Inc.; Brenntag Specialties LLC; Charles B. Chrystal Company, Inc.; Chattem, Inc.; Cla-Val Co.; FMC Corporation; General Electric Company; Hill Brothers Chemical Company; Hopeman Brothers Inc.; IMO Industries; J.T. Thorpe & Sons, Inc.; Metalclad Insulation LLC; Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; Puget Sound Commerce Center Inc.; Redco Corporation; Sterling Fluid Systems (USA), LLC; Syd Carpenter, Marine Contractor, Inc.; Tuthill Corporation; Union Carbide Corporation; Valves and Controls US, Inc.; Velan Valve Corp.; Warren Pumps, LLC; Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc.; and The William Powell Company.  Defendant states it stipulates to Texas’ jurisdiction, but it did not provide evidence that any of the other defendants are subject to Texas’ jurisdiction or have stipulated to Texas’ jurisdiction.

            Plaintiffs contend that at least five defendants are California corporations that exposed Jerry Teffeteller to asbestos in California.  (Opposition at p. 12.)  Plaintiffs filed evidence that Cla-Val Co., Hill Brothers Chemical Company, Metalclad Insulation Corporation, J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., and Syd Carpenter, Marine Contractor, Inc. were formed in California and have their principal places of business in California.  (Plaintiffs’ Exs. 4-8.) 

            In its reply, Defendant argues that at least three of these five companies are subject to Texas’ jurisdiction because they have offices in Texas.  (Reply at p. 5.)  Be that as it may, Defendant has not shown that the other twenty-one defendants are subject to Texas’s jurisdiction.  The fact that no defendant opposed the motion does not mean they agree to Texas’s jurisdiction. 

The motion is DENIED.

The moving party is to give notice.