Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 22STCV26811, Date: 2023-10-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV26811    Hearing Date: October 6, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:   October 6, 2023                                 

CASE NAME:           The Estate of Violet Leger, et al v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

CASE NO.:                22STCV26811

MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS

MOVING PARTY: Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs, the Estate of Violet Leger, Cassie Riddick, Natalie Leger, and Glenn Chamberlain

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.      Defendant American Honda Motor Company, Inc. requests the court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint because Arkansas is a more appropriate forum.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.      The court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss;

2.      The court STAYS the matter pursuant to CCP § 410.30(a) pending Plaintiffs’ refiling in Arkansas.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Plaintiffs currently reside in Siloam Springs, Arkansas. Defendant is headquartered in Torrance, California. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs were involved in a major car accident on August 21, 2020 in Carroll County, Arkansas. The Complaint alleges that the accident resulted from loss of steering control.

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint on August 18, 2022 with for four causes of action: (1) Strict Product Liability, (2) Negligence, (3) Wrongful Death, and (4) Survival. Defendant filed an Answer on April 3, 2023.

Defendant filed the instant motion on August 17, 2023. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on September 25, 2023. Defendants filed a reply on September 29, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD:

CCP § 410.30(a) provides that “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.”

Plaintiff’s choice of forum will not be disturbed unless the court is convinced that: (1) a “suitable” alternative exists, and (2) 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 (Stangvik).) After balancing the relevant factors, the trial court decides which party will be more inconvenienced. (Rinauro v. Honda Motor Co. (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 506, 510.)

Defendant bears the burden of proving the action should be tried elsewhere. (Fox Factory, Inc. v. Superior Court (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 197, 204; see also Stangvik , supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.)

ANALYSIS:

Non-California Resident Plaintiffs

As a threshold question, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ forum choice is not a factor in deciding whether to dismiss (or stay) this action. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants needed to show that California is a “seriously inconvenient” forum to succeed on their motion.

Both parties are incorrect. Although it is true that a non-California resident plaintiffs receive less deference in their forum selection than California resident plaintiffs. (Stangvik supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 755), California is presumed convenient to a corporate defendant who is both incorporated and has its principal place of business in California. (Id. at p. 756.) However, this presumption is not conclusive and may be overcome with evidence, on balance, “that the alternative jurisdiction is more convenient place for trial of this action.” (Ibid.) [1]

Suitability of Arkansas as Alternative Forum

An alternative forum is “suitable” if: (1) it has jurisdiction and an action in that forum will not be barred by the statute of limitations, (2) the other forum’s law provides a remedy for the subject claim, and (3) the defendant agrees to submit to jurisdiction in the other forum. (Guimei v. General Elec. Co. (2009) 172 Cal.4th 689, 696; see Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt 233 Cal.4th 1363, 1376-77 [noting that the California court should stay rather than dismiss action when it is unclear at the time of hearing whether the action could proceed in the other forum.]; Stangvik., supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 752.)

a.      Jurisdiction & Statute of Limitations

Defendant claims that the statute of limitations for Plaintiffs’ claims lapsed on August 21, 2023, but, they agree to a “tolling period” to prevent the limitations period from lapsing starting August 20, 2023 and ending 30 days after a ruling is entered on this pending motion. Plaintiffs contend Defendants’ offer to toll is an “end-around” the limitations issue and that Defendants wrongfully waited until after the limitations period ran to bring this motion.

The statute of limitations in the other forum must not have run on plaintiff’s claim; or, alternatively, defendant must be willing to waive the statute as a condition of the court’s granting the motion. (Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc., supra, 54 Cal.3d at 752.)

Here, Defendants demonstrated that Arkansas would have jurisdiction and that the limitations period would not impact Plaintiffs’ ability to refile in Arkansas. The Complaint alleges the subject accident occurred on August 21, 2020. (Compl. ¶ 1.) As Defendants note, in Arkansas, Plaintiffs claims for products liability, wrongful death, and survival needed to be filed on or before August 21, 2023. (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-102 (wrongful death / survival), Ark Code. Ann. § 16-116-203 (products liability)) Plaintiffs’ remaining claim for negligence has a five (5) year limitations period and needs to be brought on or before August 21, 2025. ( Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-115 (all other actions)[2].) As noted above, Defendant recognizes that the limitations period for most of Plaintiffs’ claims expired on August 21, 2023 and agreed to a “tolling period” of August 20, 2023 to 30 days after a ruling is entered on this pending motion to prevent the limitations period from lapsing. Plaintiffs misinterpret Defendant’s offer as an “end-round” attempt because Defendant essentially offered not to raise a statute of limitations defense if Plaintiffs refile their action in Arkansas.[3]

Additionally, the court disregards the parties’ discussion as to this motion’s timeliness because it has no bearing on whether the limitations period ran or whether Defendant will waive this defense upon refiling in Arkansas.[4]

Accordingly, the requirement for jurisdiction in the alternate forum and waiver of statute of limitations defense is met.

b.      Arkansas Law Remedy for Subject Claims

Defendant claims that Arkansas recognizes claims for negligence, strict products liability, wrongful death, and survival actions. (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-102(b), §§ 16-116-101, and §16-62-101.) Plaintiffs do not oppose this point.

Accordingly, the requirement that the alternate forum provide a remedy for the subject claims is met.

c.       Defendant Agrees to Submit to Jurisdiction in Arkansas

Here, Defendant states it will submit to jurisdiction in Arkansas.

Accordingly, the requirement that defendant agree to submit to jurisdiction in the alternate forum is met.

Therefore, Defendant establishes that Arkansas is a suitable forum for Plaintiffs’ claims.

Balancing Interests

a.      Private Interest Factors

Defendant argues that the factual evidence for this matter is all in Arkansas, including the pertinent fact witnesses. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to various discovery related to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) investigation related to Defendant’s recall of Honda Accords for years 2013-2015. Defendants counter that they can provide the documents Plaintiffs seek electronically via discovery.

Private interest factors include: (1) access to sources of proof, (2) the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses, and (3) the availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling witnesses. (Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc., supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751; Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463-64.)

Here, the private factors weigh in favor of Arkansas as a more appropriate forum. First, the Complaint alleges that the subject accident occurred in Arkansas. Second, the Plaintiffs all reside in Arkansas. Third, the Plaintiffs sought treatment in Arkansas. (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 4, 12, 17, 18, 19, and 20.) Fourth, the pertinent first responder witnesses all reside in Arkansas. (See Declaration (Dec.) of Ted Hostetler [Defendant’s Exhibit D], Dec. of Gregory Lentz [Defendant’s Exhibit E], and Dec. of William Welch.) The necessity of investigating, deposing and calling these important fact witnesses, who live and work outside of California, weighs in favor of the alternative forum. Defendants also correctly point out that these out of state witnesses could not be compelled to testify at trial in California. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1989; see Toyota Motor Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1107, 1110 [applying this section to deposition subpoenas as well as trial subpoenas.].) [5]  Plaintiffs do not dispute these points, which the court interprets as conceding to them.

Additionally, the court agrees with Defendant that the discovery Plaintiffs seek, namely, identification of witnesses to their claims and the NHTSA claims, can be adequately sought during discovery in Arkansas. Notably, Plaintiffs request routine fact discovery, the identification of fact witnesses, which Defendant would necessarily need to provide during discovery.[6]

Accordingly, the private factors weigh in favor of the alternative forum.

b.      Public Interest Factors

Defendant argues that dismissing this case avoids overburdening the California courts, protects local jurors from deciding Arkansas factual issues, and that California does not have a meaningful interest in this case. Plaintiff does not oppose these claims.

Public interest factors include: (1) avoiding overburdening local courts with congested calendars, (2) 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 (3) weighing the competing interests of California and the alternative jurisdiction in the litigation. Stangvik v. Shiley, Inc., supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751; Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463-64.)

Here, the public factors weigh in favor of Arkansas as the appropriate venue. As in Rinauro v. Honda Motor Co., supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at 510, where the accident and majority of witnesses were in Nevada, here, the alleged accident occurred in Arkansas, the Plaintiffs reside in Arkansas, many witnesses reside in Arkansas, the vehicle was not manufactured in California, and two of these witnesses declared they would be “extremely inconvenienced” by a California trial. (See Defendant’s Exhibits A, B, D, and E.) On these same facts, California jurors would not have the same level of concern as jurors in Arkansas because the claims arose in Arkansas and most if not all of the evidence is in Arkansas. Finally, Arkansas’s interest in litigating this case is greater than California’s because California’s only connection is Defendant’s incorporation and principal place of business here.

Plaintiffs do not dispute any of these points, which the court interprets as conceding to them.

Accordingly, the public interest factors weigh in favor of the alternative forum.

c.       Balance

Here, both the private and public factors weigh in favor of Arkansas as the appropriate venue. Therefore, Defendant sufficiently established that the private and public interest factors favor dismissal, or stay, of this action. Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution, the Court will exercises its discretion to stay the action instead of dismissing until Arkansas fully accepts the case.

CONCLUSION:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

1.      The court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss;

2.      The court STAYS the matter pursuant to CCP § 410.30(a) pending Plaintiffs’ refiling in Arkansas.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             October 5, 2023                      __________________________________                                                                                                                Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court