SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On August 17, 2022, Plaintiff Steve Dixon (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Bird Rides, Inc. (“Bird Rides”), Midvale City, and Salt Lake County for injuries arising from an August 24, 2021 fall, wherein Plaintiff was riding a scooter at or near 920 Jordan River Blvd., Midvale, Utah 8404 when he struck an unattended electric scooter on the premises.  

Bird Rides moves to dismiss or stay the action on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff opposes the motion, and Bird Rides filed a reply.  

The instant motion was initially set to be heard on September 28, 2023 and, after conferring with the parties, the Court continued hearing to February 13, 2024. (Min. Order, Sept. 28, 2023.) 

 

II. Request for Judicial Notice 

Bird Rides request the Court take judicial notice of Utah Code § 78B-2-307. Utah Code § 78B-2-307 provides that an action may be brought within four years for payments received on last payments received based upon a contractual obligation, for voidable transactions, or for a claim involving personal property damage involving a motor vehicle.  

The request is DENIED, because Utah Code § 78B-2-307 bears no apparent relevance to this action for personal injury.  

 

III. Legal Standard 

“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).)  In other words, the doctrine of 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 considering motions based on forum non conveniens, courts undertake a two-part analysis. First, the court determines whether the alternate forum is a suitable place for trial.  To be suitable, a forum need only have personal jurisdiction and not have a statute of limitations that would bar the action.  (Chong v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1032.)   If it is, the next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in litigating the matter in one forum or another. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 751.)   

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.  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 moving party bears the burden of establishing both components in the analysis.  (Ibid.)  The trial court has considerable discretion to decide motions based on forum non conveniens.  (Ibid.)   

 

IV. Discussion 

Bird Rides contends Plaintiff’s allegations pertain to events occurring solely in the State of Utah. Bird Rides argues that Plaintiff’s action will not be barred by Utah’s statute of limitations, which provides that Plaintiff has four years to bring an action for personal injury. Furthermore, Bird Rides avers that sources of proof are more easily accessed in Utah because the accident occurred in Utah, and witnesses would be required to incur unnecessary travel costs to testify in Los Angeles. Bird Ride also argues that the Los Angeles Superior Court is overburdened with cases, the incident did not occur in Los Angeles, and that Utah has a greater interest in adjudicating this matter for injuries occurring in the State of Utah.  

In opposition, Plaintiff contends Bird Rides is headquartered in Santa Monica, California, and that its state of incorporation is presumptively a convenient forum. Plaintiff resides in Carlsbad, California, and Plaintiff’s treating doctors are in California. Plaintiff argues California has a greater interest in this matter because Plaintiff is a California resident, Bird Rides is headquartered in California, and Bird Ride has not demonstrated that Utah would have jurisdiction over Bird Ride.  

In reply, Bird Rides reiterates the same argument. 

As noted above, Utah Code § 78B-2-307 does not, on its face, pertain to personal injury actions. Therefore, Bird Rides has not demonstrated that Plaintiff’s action will not be barred by Utah’s statute of limitations. Furthermore, Bird Rides has not met its moving burden to establish that the private and public interests favor Utah as a more convenient forum. Bird Rides does not submit any evidence that its witnesses reside in or are located in Utah, nor does Bird Rides identify any such prospective witnesses. Furthermore, California courts have an interest in regulating Bird Rides’ company headquartered and incorporated in California, even if the incident occurred in Utah, because its business decisions and policies are made in California and have potential ramifications. 

 

Accordingly, Bird Rides’ motion is DENIED. 

 

Moving party is ordered to give notice. 

 

 

Dated this 2nd day of February 2024