Judge: Maren Nelson, Case: 23STCV08092, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV08092    Hearing Date: September 19, 2023    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendants’ motion to dismiss forum non conveniens is GRANTED.

            On 4/12/2023, Plaintiff Navid Keshavarz-Nia (Plaintiff) filed suit against Raytheon (CA) Technologies Corporation and Raytheon Technologies, Inc. (collectively, Defendants) alleging: (1) discrimination; (2) retaliation; (3) failure to investigate and prevent violations of FEHA; and (4) Labor Code section 1102.5.

            Now, Defendants move to dismiss, or in the alternative, stay this action, based on forum non conveniens.

Discussion

            Defendants argue that this case should be heard in Virginia, given that this case has only a tenuous connection to California. In support, Defendants submitted evidence that:

-         None of the parties are residents of California. While Plaintiff states that he is a resident of California, in reality he is and has been a resident of Virginia since 1/1/2023.

-         Defendant is headquartered in Arlington, Virginia.

-         The division of Raytheon Company that Plaintiff performed work for is in Dulles, Virginia – not California.

-         Raytheon Company hired Plaintiff to perform work on site, in Virginia, on projects located and operating in Virginia – not California.

-         He reported to supervisors and performed work on projects physically located in Dulles, Virginia – not California.

-         All of the documents and information pertaining to his employment and associated claims are located in Virginia – not California.

-         Witnesses directly involved in the alleged conduct and overseeing subsequent investigations are located in Virginia – not California.

-         The only connection this case has to California is that Raytheon Company accommodated Plaintiff’s request for a temporary relocation to California to care for a sick relative.

-         While Plaintiff temporarily relocated to California, all of the projects and employees Plaintiff worked with, or reported to, were, and are, located in Dulles, Virginia or outside of California.

-         Plaintiff worked from California until December 2022, at which time he moved back to Vienna, Virginia. Plaintiff currently lives in Virginia and works for Raytheon Company in Virginia.

(See Flickinger Decl.)

“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. (citation omitted).) 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 the state, the court shall stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just. (CCP § 410.30(a).) The defendant bears the burden of proof that the action should be tried elsewhere. To establish its burden, a defendant must show (1) a suitable alternative forum exists and (2) the balance of private and public interest factors makes it “just” that the litigation proceed in the alternative forum. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.)

After review, the Court agrees that Virginia is a more suitable forum for this action over California, and the balance of the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public weighs against retaining this action for trial in California. 

As for private factors, here, all of the parties, documents and evidence, and nearly all of the witnesses, are located outside of California. Plaintiff, an indispensable witness, is a resident of Virginia and has been since he returned from his temporary relocation on January 1, 2023. (Flickinger Dec., ¶¶ 6-9, Exs. A-B.) The other potentially relevant third party witnesses reside in Florida or California. (Id., ¶ 8.) Only two of the seven witnesses in this case are in California. With the exception of two, both of whom are current employees of Raytheon Company, the witnesses are geographically located closer to Virginia than California. (Flickinger Dec., ¶ 7.)

As for public factors, the conduct alleged does not relate to or affect any property located in California or products manufactured there. Moreover, Virginia has a greater interest in resolving its residents’ claims, implementing its laws and regulating its business practices that directly affect Virginia. Here, Plaintiff’s initial interviews, hire, and onboarding all occurred in Virginia. (Flickinger Dec., ¶ 6; Roth Dec., ¶¶ 4-5.) His position was based out of Virginia. (Ibid.) His assignments and the projects he performed work on are located in Virginia. (Ibid.) All of the work he performed, while temporarily relocated to care for a relative in California, affected and related to ongoing projects physically occurring in Virginia. (Ibid.) Similarly, all of the decisions relating to Plaintiff’s employment occurred out of or through the Virginia headquarters and Dulles, Virginia facility. (Ibid.) As such, the impact of his work and effects of the allegations alleged were all felt in Virginia – not California.

Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  September    , 2023

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.