Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 24STCV31346, Date: 2025-03-27 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

CASE NAME: Care Associates, Inc. v. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Docker LLP

On November 27, 2024, Plaintiff Care Associates, Inc. (Plaintiff or Care Associates) filed a Complaint against Defendant Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP (Wilson Elser) with two causes of action for: (1) Professional Negligence – Legal Malpractice; and (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

According to the Complaint, Care Associates retained Wilson Elser to provide legal services concerning a breach of lease agreement. Care Associates alleges Wilson Elser committed multiple cases of malpractice, including, failure to conduct discovery, failing to seek a discovery deadline extension, failing to secure an expert, failing to include specific causes of action, and lack of diligence. As a result, Care Associates contends that they were forced to settle the case for $425,000.00 instead of $175,000.00 more.

On December 23, 2024, Wilson Elser filed the instant motion for stay due to forum non conveniens.

On January 2, 2025, Wilson Elser filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint against Care Associates with four causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Account Stated; (3) Services Rendered; and (4) Quantum Meruit. Wilson Elser alleges that Care Associates refused to pay for rendered services.

On March 13, 2025, Care Associates filed an opposition to Wilson Elser’s motion for stay. On March 20, 2025, Wilson Elser filed a reply and evidentiary objections.[1]

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.”

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 v. Shiley, Inc. (1991) 53 Cal.3d 744, 566 (Stangvik) [noting that California is presumed convenient to a corporate defendant who is both incorporated and has its principal place of business in California.])

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, supra, 53 Cal.3d at. 751.) 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.)

Wilson Elser contends that Florida is a suitable forum because they are subject to jurisdiction there, and Plaintiff’s claims are not barred by the applicable Florida statutes of limitation. Wilson Elser further contends that the private factors weigh in favor Florida because the witnesses (except Plaintiff) are there, the alleged malpractice happened there, the documentary evidence is there, and the applicable standard of care pertains to Florida attorneys. Finally, Wilson Elser contends that the public factors weigh in favor of Florida because this litigation has nothing to do with Los Angeles County or California, the court here would be burdened by applying Florida law to the case, and Florida has a great interest in resolving this case.

Plaintiff argues California has a strong interest in litigating this case because Plaintiff is a California corporation, that modern technology allows for witnesses to appear remotely, that Wilson Elser has offices in California, that California courts can apply Florida law without issue, that there is no evidence that Florida’s courts are less congested that this one, and there are no other compelling reasons for this case to go in Florida.[2]

Wilson Elser replies that Plaintiff provided no evidence supporting its arguments, it did not address many of the public interest factors, and that Florida remains better equipped than California to handle a predominantly Floridian dispute.

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 (Guimei); 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.)

Here, Florida is a suitable alternative forum. Notably, neither party disputes that Florida has jurisdiction or that the case is not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Even so, Florida has jurisdiction over Wilson Elser because they have several offices in Florida and practice law in Florida. (See Mot. 5:10-14.) Additionally, Florida’s two-year statute of limitations for professional negligence (i.e., legal malpractice) has not yet run. (Mot. 5:14-18.)

Accordingly, Florida is a suitable alternative forum and the court next considers the relevant interests.

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 interest factors weigh in favor of Florida as the appropriate venue. First, 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 malpractice occurred in Florida, the subject property is in Florida, and all of the witnesses (except for Plaintiff’s agent) reside in Florida. (Lee Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4, 7, 10.) Wilson Elser also persuasively argues that expert witnesses would need to apply Florida’s standard of care which implies they, too, reside in Florida. Finally, Wilson Elser 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.]) Conversely, Plaintiff unpersuasively argues that they can essentially conduct a trial by videotape of these witnesses. The court will address that point below. The only other argument Plaintiff advanced is that it has a significant interest in litigating here as a resident corporation. However, Plaintiff’s residence is simply another factor for this court’s consideration and this court is not convinced it outweighs the other items Wilson Elser identified.

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 interest factors weigh in favor of Florida, too. First, Los Angeles County’s court is congested, which neither party disputes, and so there is an interest in having this case handled by a more interested forum. Second, California jurors would not have the same level of concern as jurors in Florida because the claims arose in Florida, concern Florida’s standard of care, and most if not all of the evidence is in Florida.[3] Third, Florida’s interest in litigating this case is greater than California’s because California’s only connection is Plaintiff’s incorporation here.

1. Motion for Stay IS GRANTED. Order to Show Cause on Status on New Filing on August 28, 2025 at 8:30a.m.

[1] The court is unaware of any legal authority which requires a court to rule on evidentiary objections on a motion, except as to a motion for summary motion/adjudication [CCP §¿437c (q)] or a special motion to strike (CCP § 425.16 (b)(2); see also, Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Gilbane Building Co. (2019) 6 Cal.5th 931, 947-949.) As such, this court respectfully declines to rule on any of these objections.¿ This court is well aware of the rules of evidence, and how much weight, if any, should be given to any of the proposed evidence.

[2] However, Plaintiff concedes that “During the period of representation by the defendant, the plaintiff was based in California and managed the Florida case from there. All proceedings were conducted remotely, eliminating the need for the plaintiff to travel to Florida.” (Opp. 3:24-4:1.) Plaintiff did not address that the Florida witnesses are beyond this court’s subpoena power. Separately, the court rejects the congestion argument as unpersuasive and notes that Plaintiff provided no on point authority for its position that Wilson Elser must show a substantial difference in congestion to justify a venue change.

[3] Indeed, the court is hard pressed to conclude that any California juror (let alone this court) would be interested in Plaintiff’s proposed trial by videotaped deposition.