Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01520, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01520    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿ 

¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 April 25, 2023¿¿ 

¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  22TRCV0120

¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Alexandria Black-Davis v. Thomas Blackburn, et al.

                                                            .¿¿¿ ¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Defendant, LYFT, Inc.

¿¿ 

RESPONDING PARTY:       None.

¿¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        None Set.   

¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion for Forum Non-Conveniens

¿ 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED.

¿ 

I. BACKGROUND¿¿ 

¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿ 

            On December 19, 2022, Plaintiff, Alexandria Black-Davis filed a Complaint against Defendants, Thomas Blackburn and LYFT, Inc. Since then, Defendant, Thomas Blackburn has been dismissed. Complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence. Plaintiff alleges that on February 11, 2021, she was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Defendant when it was involved in a collision at “Highway 183 at Austin-Bergstrom Int’l airport.” (Request for Judicial Notice, (“RJN”), Exhibit (“Ex.”) 1, (Complaint), pp. 4-5.) Notably, Plaintiff did not check box 8(c) on her Complaint, which indicates that “injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area,” as grounds for venue in Los Angeles County. (RJN, Ex. 1 (Complaint), p. 2, ¶ 8(c).)

B. Procedural¿¿ 

On March 28, 2023, Defendant, LYFT, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non-Conveniens. On April 17, 2023, Defendant filed a notice of Plaintiff’s failure to oppose the motion. On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a request for Dismissal of Defendant, Thomas Blackburn.  

II. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Defendant, LYFT, Inc. requested that this Court take judicial notice of the following:

1.      The Court is requested to judicially notice Plaintiff Alexandria Black-Davis’s Complaint filed with the Court as Case Number 22TRCV01520, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. (Evid. Code 452(d) [judicial notice may be taken of records of “any court of this state.”]; See Friends of Shingle Springs Interchange, Inc. v. County of El Dorado (2011) 200 Cal. App. 4th 1470, 1482 [“[w]hen any ground for objection to a complaint ... appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may be taken by a [pleading challenge].”])

2.      The Court is requested to judicially notice the fact that the location of the Austin Bergstrom International Airport (as alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint as the location of the motor vehicle collision and injury) is not in Los Angeles County, but rather, in Austin, Texas, (Cal. Evid. Code § 452(h) [judicial notice may be taken of “facts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.”)

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s request and takes judicial notice of the above.

III. ANALYSIS¿ 

¿ 

A. 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 applying the traditional forum non conveniens analysis, the trial court must engage in a two-step process, on which the defendant bears the burden of proof. (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751; Chong v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1032 1037- 1038; Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1462.) In the first step, the court must determine whether a suitable alternative forum exists. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) "If the court finds that a suitable alternative forum exists, it must then balance the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action in California.” (Animal Film, LLC v. D.E.J. Productions, Inc. (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 466, 472.) The trial court’s balancing is given substantial deference. (Chong, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 1038.) 

"Neither inconvenience nor the additional expense of litigation in the selected forum is a factor to be considered. However, a forum selection clause will not be enforced if to do so would bring about a result contrary to the public policy of this state." (Intershop, supra, p. 199-200.) 

B. Discussion

            Here, Defendant, LYFT, Inc. notes that the subject accident occurred in Austin, Texas. Defendant also notes that Plaintiff’s counsel admitted in a representation made to this Court in this case, that Plaintiff currently resides in Texas and further represented his belief that Blackburn is a Texas resident. Defendant cites to the Texas Peace Officer’s Crash Report for the crash occurring on February 11, 2021, in Austin, Texas (“Crash Report”) noting that all of the persons involved in the 12-vehicle accident were Texas residents, including Blackburn, with on exception of a single third-party driver, identified in the Crash Report, as having a Miami, Florida address, and who is not a party to this lawsuit. Defendant notes that all known prospective witnesses with knowledge of the accident and injuries reside in Texas, as well as all known records, documents, and other physical evidence related to this accident.

            Further, Defendant notes that LYFT is a TNC in Texas, and TNCs are governed by the Texas TNC Statute, which defines a TNC as an “entity that, for compensation, enables a passenger to prearrange with a driver, exclusively through the entity’s digital network, a digitally prearranged ride. (Tex. Occ. Code, § 2402.001.) Texas Occupations Code Section 2402.003(a) states in relevant part, “the regulation of transportation network companies, drivers logged in to a digital network, and vehicles used to provide digitally prearranged rides: (1) is an exclusive power and function of this state…”. Texas has implemented a detailed insurance structure governing this arrangement. (Tex. Ins. Code §§ 1954.001 et seq.)

Suitable Alternative

            Defendant argues that Texas is not only a suitable forum, but also the more appropriate forum. First, Defendant explains that Texas state courts have jurisdiction as the accident occurred in Texas. Additionally, to address any doubt, Defendant, without waiving any of its other rights and defenses, is willing to stipulate to personal jurisdiction in Texas. (MacLeod Decl., ¶ 13.) Defendant notes that this stipulation satisfies the portion of the “suitable” forum inquiry under Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc., supra, 54 Cal.3d at 752, fn. 3. Defendant also notes that Blackburn is a Texas resident subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas. Second, Defendant also notes that under California’s “borrowing statute,” under Code of Civil Procedure § 361, the applicable Texas statute of limitations will apply to Plaintiff’s claims regardless of whether they were brough in California or in Texas. As such, Defendant correctly notes that there is no statute of limitations barring Plaintiff’s action in Texas that would not also apply in California. However, Defendant also notes that it is willing to alleviate any doubt by being willing to stipulate to the tolling of the statute of limitations during the pendency of Plaintiff’s claims before this court, given that it appears that the lawsuit was filed timely under the Texas statute of limitations for personal injuries. (MacLeod Decl., ¶ 14.)

            Based on the law, and Defendant’s willingness to stipulate in order to alleviate any of the Court’s concerns, the Court believes that Defendant satisfies its burden in showing that Texas state courts will be a suitable alternative.

Weighing of Private and Public Factors

            Defendant notes that private factors weigh in favor of dismissal as all relevant prospective witnesses are indisputably in Texas, where the accident occurred, and where Plaintiff resides. Defendant contends that all would be inconvenienced by a California trial. Additionally, Defendant contends that California courts cannot compel the attendance of non-party witnesses to testify under California law. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1989, 2026.010(c).) Further, the underlying events of this lawsuit occurred in Texas, and all records, documents, and other physical evidence are located in Texas. The Court agrees that the listed private factors weigh in favor of dismissal so that Plaintiff may re-file in Texas.

            Defendant also notes that public interest factors weigh in favor of dismissal because Texas has every interest in this case, whereas California has very little interest in litigation involving injuries that occurred outside of California by non-residents. Defendant supports this argument by noting that Texas has passed specific laws regulating all facets of Plaintiff’s lawsuit, and the insurance at play is based on Texas regulations. Defendant further notes that dismissal is warranted because neither the Court nor the jury in California would be burdened with interpreting and applying Texas law to decide this Texas action in a heavily-regulated space.

            Based on the above, and because Plaintiff does not oppose this motion, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion for dismissal for Forum Non-Conveniens.