Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV31227, Date: 2024-12-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV31227 Hearing Date: December 27, 2024 Dept: 29
Travis
v. Behavioral Systems Southwest Inc.
23STCV31227
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss on Grounds of Forum Non Conveniens
Tentative
The
motion is denied.
Background
On December 21, 2023, Rashell Travis
(“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action against Behavioral Systems
Southwest Inc. (“Defendant”), Morris Hibbitt, Jr. (“Hibbitt”), and Does 1 through
20. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges (among
other things) that Hibbit committed sexual battery/rape against her during the
scope of his employment with Defendant, and that the unlawful acts at issue
occurred on or about May 23, 2023, in a facility located in Phoenix, Arizona. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s principal
place of business is within Los Angeles County.
Plaintiff asserts causes of action for sexual battery, assault, battery,
negligence, sexual harassment, and violation of the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act.
On February
23, 2024, Defendant filed an answer.
On November 20, 2024, Defendant filed
this motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens. Plaintiff filed
an opposition on December 11, along with objections to some of Defendant’s
evidence. Defendant filed a reply, along
with additional evidence, on December 18. Plaintiff filed additional objections
on December 20.
Legal
Standard
Even when a
court has subject matter and personal jurisdiction, the court may stay or
dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum. (Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10, subd. (a)(2); 1
Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial
(2024), ¶ 3:407.)
Code of Civil
Procedure section 410.30, subdivision (a), provides: “When a court 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.”
Section 410.30 codifies the common law doctrine of forum non
conveniens. Forum non conveniens is not
a jurisdictional doctrine; rather, it is “an equitable doctrine invoking the
discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction [to stay
or dismiss] 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 re Christopher B. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 551, 559.)
Plaintiff’s
choice of forum will not be disturbed unless the court is convinced: (1) that a
“suitable” alternative forum exists; and (2) that 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; Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452,
1463.)
On a motion to
stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens, the moving party – usually the
defendant – has the burden of proof. (Stangvik,
supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) This
means that the defendant bears the burden of “providing the trial court with
sufficient facts to carry out its weighing and balancing analysis.” (National Football League v. Fireman’s
Fund Insurance Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 933 fn.15.)
A defendant may
move to stay or dismiss for forum non conveniens even after answering the
complaint or otherwise entering a general appearance. (Appalachian Insurance Co. v. Superior
Court (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 427, 440.) But a defendant must bring the
motion within a reasonable time, and the court may consider any delay (and
resulting unfair prejudice to plaintiff) in ruling on the motion. (See Martinez v. Ford Motor Co. (2010)
185 Cal.App.4th 9, 21; 1 Weil & Brown, supra, ¶ 3:417.4.)
Evidentiary
Objections
Plaintiff objects
to paragraph 8 of the declaration of Defendant’s counsel on grounds of (among things)
hearsay and lack of foundation. The
objection is SUSTAINED. Counsel cannot
competently testify that he drew a conclusion based upon his review of certain
unidentified documents.
Plaintiff
objects to the additional evidence submitted with Defendant’s reply brief. The objection is SUSTAINED. The evidence in support of a motion must be
submitted with the moving papers. Except
in certain circumstances not present here, a moving party cannot submit new
evidence with a reply brief.
Discussion
Defendant seeks to dismiss this
matter based on forum non conveniens.
Defendant has the burden of proof on
this motion and has failed to discharge that burden. Although the alleged sexual assault occurred
in Arizona, Defendant has not presented any evidence regarding the current location
or residence of likely witnesses (including Defendant’s employees or other corporate
representatives). Defendant is based in
California, the Court has no information regarding the location of nonparties, and
Plaintiff is (the Court presumes based on her choice of forum) either a current
resident of California or willing to travel to California (as necessary) for
trial.
To be sure, there are judicial forums
available in state court (and potentially federal court) in Arizona. California courts are impacted, and they have
little interest in adjudicating alleged tortious conduct in Arizona, but California
does have a public interest in regulating the conduct of persons (including
business entities) that are headquartered in California. There has been some significant litigation to
date, and trial is scheduled in less than six months; if the motion were
granted, Plaintiff would need to refile and start again in Arizona, with trial
likely delayed for months (if not longer).
On balance, on this record, the Court
concludes that Defendant has not met its burden of showing that the various
private and public factors weigh in favor of granting this motion.
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
Finally, the Court notes that
Plaintiff (at least) assumes that a California court will apply California law
to Plaintiff’s claims, and an Arizona court will not. The Court expresses no views as to the choice
of law issues that may arise in this case.
Conclusion
The Court DENIES the motion to dismiss for
forum non conveniens filed by Defendant Behavioral
Systems Southwest Inc.
Moving Party is
ORDERED to give notice.