PRETRIAL ADJUDICATION
...Jurisdiction & Venue
......Litigation Options
.........Inconvenient Forum
 23 Cards On This Topic:
  • Statute authorizing forum non conveniens petition.
  • Motion to stay or dismiss on ground of forum non conveniens.
  • District court abused its discretion in dismissing SF suit for FNC in favor of Slovakia where all but one of the private and public interest factors were either neutral or weighed against dismissal.
  • Under Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, forum non conveniens motion in fed. court governed by fed. law; abuse of discretion to deny foreign Ps their choice of fed. dist. ct. in Cal. as their forum.
  • Forum non conveniens explained.
  • Where justification for exercise of jurisdiction over out of state D not obvious, convenience of parties is a factor to consider whether or not D moved to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds.
  • Error to rule that financial services company's motion for forum non conveniens under CCP §410.30 was untimely simply because it was filed after company's general appearance.
  • Motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens improperly denied where court did not meet either the abuse of discretion or substantial evidence standard.
  • While D did not meet its burden of proving that forum selection clause was unreasonable, the trial ct. had statutory authority to decline to exercise jurisdiction given parties' absence of CA contacts.
  • Presence of a "nominal D" cannot prevent remaining Ds from obtaining FNC dismissal when, without the nominal D, the action should be pursued in alternative forums.
  • Order dismissing CA appeal before hearing from French court on whether it would take jurisdiction per FNV decision was premature and did not comply with dismissal requirements.
  • As 2 of 3 Ps of non-Muslim family were women, trial ct. erred in finding Iran a suitable alternate forum where evidence was overwhelming that Iranian courts discriminate against women and non-Muslims.
  • As moving parties, D insurers did not have BOP to establish CA was a seriously inconvenient forum because such proof was not required to justify a stay of CA proceedings, rather than a dismissal.
  • Under the plain language of CCP 410.30(a) 2d judge had the authority to reconsider on her own motion whether CA was a convenient forum.
  • Proper to stay CA action where HA was a suitable alternative forum: HA courts had SMJ over claims arising out of HA liquidation of a HA-domiciled co. and Ds were either HA residents or agreed to personal jurisdiction in HA.
  • CA judgment dismissing for forum non conveniens a case against Ford and tire manufacturer re Mex. car crash reversed where Ds moved for FNC only after using CA court for extensive discovery they could not have obtained in Mex.
  • Ds not deemed to have generally appeared by serving 998 offer where they filed motion to quash under CCP 418.10(e)(1) ••before•• serving 998 offer.
  • Trial court properly stayed actions re China plane crash based on FNC where all evidence in China and CA "has no interest in requiring its courts and juries to hear a case having no nexus to it."
  • Motion to stay action was properly brought under CCP 418.10 and timely under CCP 410.30, even though brought a year after most Ds answered.
  • In wrongful death case against CA corp. by TX residents, court correctly found CA a seriously inconvenient forum where Decedent spent most of working years, was exposed to benzene and died in TX, and most work and medical Ws were in TX.
  • In suit involving various insurance companies, D seeking to stay or dismiss on basis of forum non conveniens must show all Ds are subject to jurisdiction in proposed alternate forum.
  • Trial ct. should have stayed dissolution action due to forum non conveniens until English courts had opportunity to act.
  • Cal. action stayed pending proceedings in Hong Kong where no evidence due process would not be provided after Chinese takeover; Hong Kong was suitable alternative forum.


    •