Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 23STCV26207, Date: 2024-03-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV26207 Hearing Date: March 6, 2024 Dept: 15
[TENTATIVE] MOTION TO STAY
On October 25, 2023, Plaintiffs Maria Quiroga and Jorge Quiroga filed
this action alleging that Maria Quiroga was exposed to asbestos while living in
Florida and California. On February 7,
2024, Defendants Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson International,
and LLT Management LLC filed a motion to stay this case in favor of litigation
in Florida. Plaintiffs did not file an
opposition.
“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, in cases with a large number of
defendants, it may be “unreasonable to expect the moving defendant to prove all
defendants are subject to jurisdiction in a particular alternative forum.” (Hansen v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas
Corporation (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 753, 759.) In that situation, staying the action “pending
a determination that all defendants are subject to jurisdiction” in the
alternative forum may be appropriate. (Ibid.)
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 v. Owen-Corning
Fiberglas Corp. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 753, 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.)
A. Suitable Forum
Defendants argue Florida is a suitable alternative forum because the
Florida statute of limitation does not bar Plaintiffs’ claims and the
defendants consent to Florida jurisdiction. (Motion at pp. 1-2.)
Nineteen defendants remain in this case – Avon Products, Inc.; CVS
Pharmacy, Inc.; Charles B. Chrystal Company, Inc.; Clinique Laboratories, LLC;
Dillard’s, Inc.; Johnson & Johnson; Johnson & Johnson International;
Lancôme USA; L’Oreal USA; LTL Management LLC; Macy’s, Inc.; Minerals
Technologies, Inc.; Pfizer, Inc.; Presperse Corporation; Presperse Corporation
International; Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc.; Specialty Minerals, Inc. The Estee
Lauder Companies, Inc.; and Safeway, Inc. Including Defendants, sixteen defendants
consented to Florida jurisdiction – Defendants, Avon Products, Inc.; Charles B.
Chrystal Company, Inc.; Clinique Laboratories, Inc.; CVS Pharmacy, Inc.;
Dillard’s Inc.; Lancôme USA, L’Oreal USA; Macy’s Inc.; Pfizer, Inc.; Presperse
Corporation; Presperse International Corporation; Safeway, Inc.; and The Estee
Lauder Companies, Inc. (George Decl.,
Exs. C-L.) The remaining three
defendants – Minerals Technologies, Inc.; Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc.; and
Specialty Minerals, Inc. did not answer the complaint. (Id. at ¶ 5.)
Following the reasoning of Hansen,
in an asbestos case with a large number of defendants like this one, a court
can stay a case to allow the other forum to determine whether all defendants
are subject to that other forum’s jurisdiction. The court can stay this action “pending a
determination that all defendants are subject to jurisdiction in [Florida].” (Hansen, supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p.
759.) Therefore Defendants have shown
Florida is a possible suitable forum.
B. Balancing
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 of compulsory process
for attendance of unwilling witnesses.” (Strangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p.
751.) “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.” (Ibid.)
The Judicial Council comments to Code of
Civil Procedures section 410.30 list the following factors to be considered in
this balancing: (1) Where the residence
or the principal place of business of each party is located; (2) Whether some
or all of the parties regularly conduct business or other activities in this
state; (3) Whether the situation, transaction or events out of which the action
arose exists, occurred in, or had a substantial relationship to this state; (4)
Whether any party would be substantially disadvantaged in having to try the
action (a) in this state or (b) in the forum in which the moving party asserts
it ought to be tried; (5) Whether any judgment entered in the action would be
enforceable by process issued or other enforcement proceedings undertaken in
this state; (6) Whether witnesses would be inconvenienced if the action were
prosecuted (a) in this state or (b) in the forum in which the moving party
asserts it ought to be prosecuted; (7) The relative expense to the parties of maintaining
the action (a) in this state and (b) in the state in which the moving party
asserts the action ought to be prosecuted; (8) Whether a view of premises by
the trier of fact will or might be necessary or helpful in deciding the case;
(9) Whether prosecution of the action will or may place a burden on the courts
of this state which is unfair, inequitable or disproportionate in view of the
relationship of the parties or of the cause of action to this state; (10)
Whether the parties participating in the action, other than those of their own
volition, have a relationship to this state which imposes upon them an
obligation to participate in judicial proceedings in the courts of this state;
(11) The interest, if any, of this state in providing a forum for some or all
of the parties to the action; (12) The interest, if any, of this state in
regulating the situation or conduct involved; and (13) The avoidance of
multiplicity of actions and inconsistent adjudications. The court addresses each of these factors
below.
(1)-(2) Maria Quiroga has
lived in Florida since 1987. (George
Decl., Ex. B at p. 6.) She lived in
California from 1981 to 1984 and for three months in 1987. (Ibid.) Defendants did not provide information about
whether the defendants are incorporated in, have a principal place of business,
or regularly conduct business in Florida or California. This factor weighs in favor of Florida.
(3) Plaintiffs allege
exposure to asbestos in both Florida and California, for a longer time in Florida.
Maria Quiroga was exposed in California from
1981 to 1984 and for three months in 1987. (Motion at p. 8; George Decl., Ex. B at p. 6.)
She was exposed in Florida since 1987. (Ibid.)
This factor weighs equally because
Plaintiff was exposed in both locations.
(4) Plaintiffs did not
file an opposition and therefore did not show they would be substantially
disadvantaged by having the action tried in Florida.
(5) The parties did not
present any evidence of or argument about this factor.
(6) Defendant argues
Plaintiffs, the medical providers, and persons with knowledge of Plaintiffs’
damages are located in Florida. (Motion
at p. 8.) The witnesses in Florida would
not be subject to trial subpoenas in California. Depositions can be conducted remotely thereby
lessening the inconvenience, and the parties can agree to remote trial
testimony. Based on the court’s
experience handling hundreds of asbestos cases, the court has rarely seen
parties depose treating physicians or have them testify at trial. Medical records and Plaintiffs’ other records
are produced in discovery via the document service provider, Lexitas, pursuant
to the case management order. This
factor weighs slightly in favor of Florida.
(7) Defendants did not
present evidence of or argument about this factor. Nonetheless, the
expense of prosecuting this action in California or in Florida is likely to be
comparable. This factor is neutral.
(8)
This factor is irrelevant.
(9)-(12)
Defendants did not present argument
about these factors. California has
“little or no interest in litigation involving injuries incurred outside of California
by non-residents.” (Hansen,
supra, 51 Cal.App.4th at p. 760.) Here,
both states have an interest in providing a forum to Plaintiffs for harm
occurring within each state, and in regulating asbestos exposure within the
state. But because Plaintiffs are
current residents of Florida and have been residents there for a very long time,
most of the years of exposure occurred in Florida, and most, if not all, of the
defendants stipulate to jurisdiction in Florida, these factors weigh in favor
of Florida.
(13)
Most defendants consent to personal
jurisdiction in Florida. Minerals
Technologies, Inc.; Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc.; and Specialty Minerals, Inc. have
not filed answers. If they are
defaulted, there will not be multiple actions.
Having
weighed the factors, the court concludes that on balance, in the interest of
substantial justice, this action should be heard in Florida. Therefore, the motion
is GRANTED, and the court stays this action.
The court sets a status conference for September 4, 2024 at 9 a.m. Five court days before the status conference,
the parties are to file a joint report regarding the status of any action in
Florida.
The moving party is to give notice.