KIRKPATRICK BRANFORD VS FU LU SONG, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: *******9988 Hearing Date: July 13, 2022 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendants Fu Lu Song and Jin Yun Corp.’s motion for forum non conveniens is DENIED.

Objections

Plaintiff’s Objections to Defendants Evidence:

Objections 1-6 are SUSTAINED.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30 states, in relevant part: “(a) When a court upon motion of a party of 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 of Civil Procedure section 418.10 states, in relevant part: “(a) A defendant, on or before the last day of his or her time to plead or within any further time that the court may for good cause allow, may serve and file a notice of motion for one of more of the following purposes: . . . (2) to stay or dismiss the action on the ground of inconvenient forum.”

Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, subdivision (b)’s codification of “[f]orum 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.)

The first part of the analysis in determining whether an action should be dismissed due to being filed in an inconvenient forum is whether a suitable alternative forum exists. (See Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d 744, 752; National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 918.) A suitable alternative forum exists when the “. . . defendants are subject to the court’s jurisdiction and the cause of action is not barred by the statute of limitations.” (Guimei v. General Electric Co. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 689, 694.)

The second part of the analysis is the weighing and balancing of private and public factors. (National Football League, supra, 216, Cal.App.4th at p. 918.) “The private interest facts are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuring 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 facts include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, protecting the interest of potential jurors so that they are not called upon to decide cases in which the local community has little concern, and the weighing of competing interests of California and the alternative jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Morris v. AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463-1464.)

The party seeking a dismissal due to an inconvenient forum bears the burden of proof. (National Football League v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 902, 926.)

Discussion

Suitable Alternative Forum

Defendants argue Arizona is a suitable alternative forum. The collision that underlies Plaintiff’s action took place in Navajo County, Arizona. (Complaint, pg. 4.) The statute of limitations in Arizona is two years. (Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-542.) Further, the incident occurred on September 5, 2020, a little under two months shy of the two-year mark. (Complaint, pg. 4.)

Balancing of Interests – Private Interests

Plaintiff is a California resident. (Opposition, pg. 2:8.) Defendant Jin Yun Corp. is a California corporation with a primary place of business in Los Angeles County. (Id., pg. 2:9.) Plaintiff argues that all witnesses presently on the record, with the exception of the investigating officer, do not favor Arizona as a convenient forum. (Opposition, pg. 2:12-13.) Defendants attempt to submit evidence that Plaintiff sought medical treatment in Arizona, and that Plaintiff is not a California resident any longer, but rather a resident of Oklahoma. (Mancini Decl., Exhs. B-C.) However, exhibit B has not been authenticated, and exhibit C is hearsay, and the public records exception is not applicable as a LexisNexis Person Search Results Report is not a record made in the normal course of business by someone with first-hand knowledge. Therefore, this evidence is inadmissible.

The Court finds the private interests do not show that the forum is inconvenient in California. Plaintiff argues that he is a resident of California, and it is undisputed that Defendant is a California corporation. However, even if Defendants’ evidence was admissible, and Plaintiff sought treatment in Arizona, and lives in Oklahoma, Defendants would still not have met their burden to show California is an inconvenient forum. First, whether Plaintiff lives in Oklahoma does little to benefit Defendants’ position, because the Court is considering whether California is inconvenient compared to Arizona. Although it helps Defendants’ position in that it prevents this factor from tipping in favor of Plaintiff’s favor, it does not help Defendants’ argument otherwise. While Plaintiff’s treatment in Arizona would be helpful to Defendants if admissible, the private interests would still only be neutral in showing that California is an inconvenient forum.

Balancing of Interests – Public Interests

Defendants also argue Arizona is a more convenient forum because the collision occurred in Arizona. Further, Defendants argue that California has crowded court calendars and congested courts and it would be inequitable to impose the obligation of jury duty on a forum having little to no interest in the litigation. (Motion, pg. 5:26-27.) Defendants also argue the cost to California taxpayers for a trial in which the forum has no interest is unwarranted. (Motion, pg. 5:21-22.) However, Defendants do not recognize the interest California jurors have in deciding liability and damages issues that relates to a defendant who has its primary place of business in California. Thus, the public interests are also neutral in showing that California is an inconvenient forum.

Conclusion

Accordingly, Defendants have not met their burden to establish that California is an inconvenient forum. The motion is therefore DENIED.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Case Number: *******9988 Hearing Date: June 9, 2022 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Jin Yun Corp.’s motion for forum non conveniens is DENIED.

Legal Standard

“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.)

CCP section 410.30(a) provides, as follows: “[w]hen 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 forum exists; and (2) 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. 752.)

On a motion for forum non conveniens, the defendant, as the moving party, bears the burden of proof. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at 751-752.) The granting or denial of such a motion is within the trial court's discretion, and substantial deference is accorded its determination in this regard. (Id.)

Discussion

Defendant argues that Arizona provides a suitable place for trial and that the forum is inconvenient in Los Angeles because the collision occurred in Arizona and all witnesses are readily available in Arizona.

Plaintiff contends in opposition that Plaintiff is a California resident, and Defendant is a California corporation with a primary place of business in Los Angeles County. In addition, Plaintiff argues that Defendant has failed to make any showing that Los Angeles is a seriously inconvenient forum to any non-party witness to testify.

Here, Defendant failed to meet the burden of showing that forum is inconvenient in Los Angeles County. Defendant has failed to provide any evidence in support of its Motion to show that it would be inconvenient for the witnesses of this case to travel to Los Angeles County or that it would be inconvenient to bring physical evidence to Los Angeles County. As such, Defendant failed to meet its burden that Los Angeles County is an inconvenient forum.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.

Defendant is ordered to give notice.