Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV20973, Date: 2022-09-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20973    Hearing Date: September 22, 2022    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Plaintiff Julia Giron de Castro sued defendant Bodega Latina Corporation dba El Super based on a slip and fall in a supermarket owned and operated by defendant.  The incident occurred in Las Vegas, Nevada.  Plaintiff is resident of California.  Defendant is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in California.  Defendant moves to dismiss the action based on inconvenient forum, contending that Nevada is a superior forum for this case.  Plaintiff opposes the motion. 

ANALYSIS

“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 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,  subd. (a).)  “Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine, codified in Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30, under which a trial court has discretion to stay or dismiss a transitory cause of action that it believes may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.  The inquiry is whether in the interest of substantial justice an action should be heard in a forum outside this state.”  (Animal Film, LLC v. D.E.J. Productions, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 466, 471 [cleaned up].)  On a motion to stay or dismiss for inconvenient forum, the moving party bears the burden to produce sufficient evidence to enable the court to consider all relevant factors. (See National Football League v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 926-927.)

“The plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be disturbed unless a suitable alternative forum exists and the balance of private and public interest factors makes it just that the litigation proceed in the alternative forum.  (Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.)  A suitable alternative forum is one in which the plaintiff may obtain a valid judgment against the defendant.  (Id. at p. 752.)  The private interest factors consider where the trial and enforcement of any judgment will be the most efficient and the least expensive, and include access to sources of proof, the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses.  (Id. at p. 751.)  The public interest factors include avoiding overburdening local courts, protecting the interests of potential jurors so that they are not called on to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and weighing the competing interests of California and the alternative jurisdiction in the litigation.  (Ibid.) 

“[E]xcept in extraordinary cases a trial court has no discretion to dismiss an action brought by a California resident on grounds of forum non conveniens.”  (Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels (1976) 11 Cal.3d 853, 858.)   “This limit on the forum non conveniens doctrine reflects a state policy that California residents ought to be able to obtain redress for grievances in California courts, which are maintained by the state for their benefit.”  (Thomson v. Continental Insurance Co. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 738, 742-743.)  In light of this policy, “the exceptional case which justifies the dismissal of a suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens is one in which California cannot provide an adequate forum or has no interest in doing so” such as “cases in which no party is a California resident or in which the nominal California resident sues on behalf of foreign beneficiaries or creditors.”  (Archibald, supra, 11 Cal.3d at pp. 858-859.)  Further, a presumption of convenience to defendants arises from the fact they are incorporated in California and have their principal place of business here.  (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 760.) 

            In the alternative, when it is unclear whether the action could proceed in the other forum, the California court should stay rather than dismiss the California action.  (Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1363 1376-1377.)  In considering whether to stay an action, the plaintiff’s resident is but one of many factors which the Court may consider, including “the amenability of the defendants to personal jurisdiction, the convenience of witnesses, the expense of trial, the choice of law, and indeed any consideration which legitimately bears upon the relative suitability or convenience of the alternative forums.” (Archibald, supra, 11 Cal.3d at p. 860.) 

            Here, the Court finds Defendant has not met its burden to establish that this is an exceptional case which justifies dismissal based on forum non conveniens.  Instead, according to counsel for Defendant, George M. Wallace (“Wallace”), Nevada is a more convenient forum based on the estimation of potential witnesses in the case who are located there.  (Declaration of George M. Wallace, ¶ 3.)  Wallace also contends the scene of the incident is located in the State of Nevada and can only be viewed or inspected, if necessary, in that state.  (Ibid.) 

            In opposition, Plaintiff contends that, due to her limited mobility and injuries from the incident, it would be extremely difficult and burdensome for her to attend trial in Nevada.  (Declaration of Julia Giron de Castro, ¶¶ 3-4.)  Additionally, Plaintiff has treated for her injuries in California, including undergoing spinal surgery on June 24, 2022.  (Declaration of Kevin O’Hara, ¶ 4, Exhibit 2.)  The Court thus concludes that a number of potential witnesses will also be located in California. 

Accordingly, in consideration of all relevant factors and whether these factors weigh in favor of dismissing or staying the action, including that Plaintiff is a resident of California and Defendant has its principal place of business in California, the Court finds Defendant has not met its burden to establish that Nevada is a suitable alternative forum warranting either a dismissal of, or to stay, the action.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to dismiss for inconvenient forum or, in the alternative, stay the action.  Defendant shall provide notice of this Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.