forum non conveniens doctrine in California

2026The public interest factors include avoidance of overburdening local courts with congested calendars, 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 weighing the competing interests of California and the alternate jurisdiction in the litigation.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751 .) Here, the family court concluded the private and public interest factors weigh in favor of applying the forum non conveniens doctrine.

2025A resident defendant may overcome the presumption of convenience by evidence that the alternate jurisdiction is a more convenient place for trial of the action.” (Id. at p. 756.) Our Supreme Court next “consider[ed] the interests of the California public in retaining the trial of the actions in this state” and noted that “Piper held that the jurisdiction with the greater interest should bear the burden of entertaining the litigation.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 757 .) It concluded the Court of Appeal in the case before it had “observed correctly that preventing court congestion resultin

2023(Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 444 (Quanta).) Since, without such a clause, “neither party possesses a right to any particular forum,” a court’s “selection of one [forum] over the other requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience, not to mention the strong interest of a plaintiff’s domicile in providing the plaintiff access to its courts.” (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 (Cal-State); see Berg, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 359 [where “a clause merely provides f

2023(Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 444 (Quanta).) Since, without such a clause, “neither party possesses a right to any particular forum,” a court’s “selection of one [forum] over the other requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience, not to mention the strong interest of a plaintiff’s domicile in providing the plaintiff access to its courts.” (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 (Cal-State); see Berg, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 359 [where “a clause merely provides f

1991(Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501, 506-507 [ 67 S.Ct. 839, 842 ].) Thus we believe it is somewhat helpful to note that under both state and federal law, a forum non conveniens defense need not be raised prior to the filing of a responsive pleading.

1991(Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501, 506-507 [ 67 S.Ct. 839, 842 ].) Thus we believe it is somewhat helpful to note that under both state and federal law, a forum non conveniens defense need not be raised prior to the filing of a responsive pleading.

2023(Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 444 (Quanta).) Since, without such a clause, “neither party possesses a right to any particular forum,” a court’s “selection of one [forum] over the other requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience, not to mention the strong interest of a plaintiff’s domicile in providing the plaintiff access to its courts.” (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 (Cal-State); see Berg, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 359 [where “a clause merely provides f

2023(Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1679 (Cal-State Business Products).) When a case involves a mandatory forum selection clause, the traditional forum non conveniens analysis does not apply.

2026APPLICABLE LAW “No satisfying reason of public policy has been suggested why enforcement should be denied a forum selection clause appearing in a contract entered into freely and voluntarily by parties who have negotiated at arm’s length.” (Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court (Smith) 6 (1976) 17 Cal.3d 491 , 495–496.) “While still a matter of trial court discretion under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, ‘forum selection clauses are valid and may be given effect, in the court’s discretion and in the absence of a showing that enforcement of such a clause would be unreasonable.’

2026APPLICABLE LAW “No satisfying reason of public policy has been suggested why enforcement should be denied a forum selection clause appearing in a contract entered into freely and voluntarily by parties who have negotiated at arm’s length.” (Smith, Valentino & Smith, Inc. v. Superior Court (Smith) 6 (1976) 17 Cal.3d 491 , 495–496.) “While still a matter of trial court discretion under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, ‘forum selection clauses are valid and may be given effect, in the court’s discretion and in the absence of a showing that enforcement of such a clause would be unreasonable.’

2024On the other hand, when the clause merely provides for submission to jurisdiction and does not expressly mandate litigation exclusively in a particular forum, then the traditional forum non conveniens analysis applies.” (Intershop Communications AG v. Superior Court (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 191, 196 .) The language in this agreement is unclear and requires factual findings by the trial court.

2023(Verdugo, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 147, fn. 2 .) A clause is 7 p. 471.) If the clause is mandatory, it is presumed valid and will be enforced unless the party opposing the motion proves enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable.4 (Intershop, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at p. 198 .) If the clause is permissive, the traditional forum non conveniens analysis applies and the existence of the clause is merely one factor to be considered in determining whether the action should be heard in a different forum.

2019A mandatory clause ordinarily is 'given effect without any analysis of convenience; the only question is whether enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable.' [Citation.] But, if 'the clause merely provides for submission to jurisdiction and does not expressly mandate litigation exclusively in a particular forum, then the traditional forum non conveniens analysis applies. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" ( Animal Film , supra , 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 471 , 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 .) We conclude that the forum selection clause at issue here is mandatory, not permissive.

2019A mandatory clause ordinarily is 'given effect without any analysis of convenience; the only question is whether enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable.' [Citation.] But, if 'the clause merely provides for submission to jurisdiction and does not expressly mandate litigation exclusively in a particular forum, then the traditional forum non conveniens analysis applies. [Citation.]' [Citation.]" ( Animal Film , supra , 193 Cal.App.4th at p. 471 , 123 Cal.Rptr.3d 72 .) We conclude that the forum selection clause at issue here is mandatory, not permissive.

2013A. The Forum Selection Clause “The doctrine of forum non conveniens, established in California by judicial decision [citations], is codified in . . . section 410.30.” (Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels (1976) 15 Cal.3d 853, 857 (Archibald).) Section 410.30, subdivision (a) provides: 6 “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.” “[T]he procedure for enforcing a forum selection clause i

2008(Archibald v. Cinerama Hotels, supra, 15 Cal.3d at p. 858 .) “This limitation of the forum non conveniens doctrine does not rest on any conclusion derived from a balancing of conveniences; it reflects an overriding state policy of assuring California residents an adequate forum for the redress of grievances.” (Id. at p. 859.) When the trial court stays the action, rather than dismissing it, the court retains jurisdiction to “ ‘compel the foreign [party] to cooperate in bringing about a fair and speedy hearing in the foreign forum; it can resume proceedings if the foreign action is unreasonably

2019The Legislature codified the doctrine of forum non conveniens in 1969 by enacting section 410.30. ( Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177 , 1186, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 242 ; see Chong v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1032 , 1036, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 427 .) At the same time, the Legislature enacted section 418.10"to permit a defendant specially to challenge the court's personal jurisdiction without waiving his right to defend on the merits by allowing a default to be entered against him while the jurisdictional issue is being determined." ( In re Marriage of Merideth (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d

2019The Legislature codified the doctrine of forum non conveniens in 1969 by enacting section 410.30. ( Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177 , 1186, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 242 ; see Chong v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1032 , 1036, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 427 .) At the same time, the Legislature enacted section 418.10"to permit a defendant specially to challenge the court's personal jurisdiction without waiving his right to defend on the merits by allowing a default to be entered against him while the jurisdictional issue is being determined." ( In re Marriage of Merideth (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d

1995“The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry.” ( 454 U.S. at p. 247 [ 70 L.Ed.2d at p. 430 ].) Gulf Oil, the court said, implicitly recognized that dismissal may not be denied solely because of the possibility of an unfavorable change in law if it is granted.

1995“The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry.” ( 454 U.S. at p. 247 [ 70 L.Ed.2d at p. 430 ].) Gulf Oil, the court said, implicitly recognized that dismissal may not be denied solely because of the possibility of an unfavorable change in law if it is granted.

2025According to [the defendant], the ability to resume the action if ‘something goes awry’ is the reason California trial courts generally are required to stay rather than dismiss an action when ordering parties to litigate their dispute in a foreign jurisdiction under the forum non conveniens doctrine.” (Verdugo, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 161 .) Rejecting that argument, the Verdugo court noted that the defendant “overstate[d] a trial court’s authority to resume an action after staying it on forum non conveniens grounds.” (Verdugo, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 161 .) The court first raised a c

2025According to [the defendant], the ability to resume the action if ‘something goes awry’ is the reason California trial courts generally are required to stay rather than dismiss an action when ordering parties to litigate their dispute in a foreign jurisdiction under the forum non conveniens doctrine.” (Verdugo, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 161 .) Rejecting that argument, the Verdugo court noted that the defendant “overstate[d] a trial court’s authority to resume an action after staying it on forum non conveniens grounds.” (Verdugo, supra, 237 Cal.App.4th at p. 161 .) The court first raised a c

1990Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 577, 586 [ 268 P.2d 457 , 43 A.L.R.2d 756 ] [doctrine of forum non conveniens applies to Federal Employers’ Liability Act action, by stipulation alternative forum not in issue]. 8 Although respondent suggests appellant acted improperly in filing in California by forum shopping, the record does not support this suggestion. 9 Code of Civil Procedure section 361 reads: “When a cause of action has arisen in another State, or in a foreign country, and by the laws thereof an action thereon cannot there be maintained against a person by reason of the lapse of time, an action ther

1990Co. (1954) 42 Cal.2d 577, 586 [ 268 P.2d 457 , 43 A.L.R.2d 756 ] [doctrine of forum non conveniens applies to Federal Employers’ Liability Act action, by stipulation alternative forum not in issue]. 8 Although respondent suggests appellant acted improperly in filing in California by forum shopping, the record does not support this suggestion. 9 Code of Civil Procedure section 361 reads: “When a cause of action has arisen in another State, or in a foreign country, and by the laws thereof an action thereon cannot there be maintained against a person by reason of the lapse of time, an action ther

2023(Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 444 (Quanta).) Since, without such a clause, “neither party possesses a right to any particular forum,” a court’s “selection of one [forum] over the other requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience, not to mention the strong interest of a plaintiff’s domicile in providing the plaintiff access to its courts.” (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 (Cal-State); see Berg, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 359 [where “a clause merely provides f

2023(Quanta Computer Inc. v. Japan Communications Inc. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 438, 444 (Quanta).) Since, without such a clause, “neither party possesses a right to any particular forum,” a court’s “selection of one [forum] over the other requires the weighing of a gamut of factors of public and private convenience, not to mention the strong interest of a plaintiff’s domicile in providing the plaintiff access to its courts.” (Cal-State Business Products & Services, Inc. v. Ricoh (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1666, 1683 (Cal-State); see Berg, supra, 61 Cal.App.4th at p. 359 [where “a clause merely provides f

2013(Century, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 412 .) 11 The Restatement Second of Conflict of Laws, section 84, sets forth the forum non conveniens doctrine as follows: “A state will not exercise jurisdiction if it is a seriously inconvenient forum for the trial of the action provided that a more appropriate forum is available to the plaintiff.” (Rest.2d Conf. of Laws, § 84, boldface omitted). 12 Ford , also cites to Northrop Corp. v. American Motorists Ins.

2006(Ibid.; see Century Indemnity Co. v. Bank of America (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 408, 411 [ 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 132 ] (Century Indemnity).) Archibald explicitly acknowledged that an action by a California resident could be stayed under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

2022A certificate of incorporation is “a contractual agreement between the corporation and its shareholders.” (Bushansky v. Soon-Shiong (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1005 (Bushansky).) “Where a plaintiff brings suit in California, the potential applicability of a contractual forum selection clause is raised by the defendant through a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens.” (Bushansky, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 1005 .) Under the forum non conveniens doctrine, “a trial court has discretion to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over a cause of 3The trial court held that the FFP was n

2022A certificate of incorporation is “a contractual agreement between the corporation and its shareholders.” (Bushansky v. Soon-Shiong (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1005 (Bushansky).) “Where a plaintiff brings suit in California, the potential applicability of a contractual forum selection clause is raised by the defendant through a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens.” (Bushansky, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 1005 .) Under the forum non conveniens doctrine, “a trial court has discretion to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over a cause of 3The trial court held that the FFP was n

1977Code, § 138) has been construed as follows: “This section has been held to expressly reserve to the California divorce court jurisdiction to modify its custody awards even though the children later become domiciled in another jurisdiction. [Citations.]” (Forslund v. Forslund (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 476, 484 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 489 ], See also Ferreira v. Ferreira (1973) 9 Cal.3d 824, 838, fn. 18 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 80 , 512 P.2d 304 ]; McDowell v. Orsini (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 951, 962, fn. 5 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 285 ]; and Davis v. Davis (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 75, 77 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 923 ].) As we indicate below (

1977Code, § 138) has been construed as follows: “This section has been held to expressly reserve to the California divorce court jurisdiction to modify its custody awards even though the children later become domiciled in another jurisdiction. [Citations.]” (Forslund v. Forslund (1964) 225 Cal.App.2d 476, 484 [ 37 Cal.Rptr. 489 ], See also Ferreira v. Ferreira (1973) 9 Cal.3d 824, 838, fn. 18 [ 109 Cal.Rptr. 80 , 512 P.2d 304 ]; McDowell v. Orsini (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 951, 962, fn. 5 [ 127 Cal.Rptr. 285 ]; and Davis v. Davis (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 75, 77 [ 1 Cal.Rptr. 923 ].) As we indicate below (

2011Under subdivision (a) of that section, “[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.” Section 410.30 is a codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens (see Furda v. Superior Court (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 418 , 425 & fn. 3 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 646 ] (Furda)), but the principles governing enforcement of a forum selection clause are not the same as those applicable to motions based

2011Under subdivision (a) of that section, “[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.” Section 410.30 is a codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens (see Furda v. Superior Court (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 418 , 425 & fn. 3 [ 207 Cal.Rptr. 646 ] (Furda)), but the principles governing enforcement of a forum selection clause are not the same as those applicable to motions based

2019The Legislature codified the doctrine of forum non conveniens in 1969 by enacting section 410.30. ( Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177 , 1186, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 242 ; see Chong v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1032 , 1036, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 427 .) At the same time, the Legislature enacted section 418.10"to permit a defendant specially to challenge the court's personal jurisdiction without waiving his right to defend on the merits by allowing a default to be entered against him while the jurisdictional issue is being determined." ( In re Marriage of Merideth (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d

2019The Legislature codified the doctrine of forum non conveniens in 1969 by enacting section 410.30. ( Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177 , 1186, 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 242 ; see Chong v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1032 , 1036, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 427 .) At the same time, the Legislature enacted section 418.10"to permit a defendant specially to challenge the court's personal jurisdiction without waiving his right to defend on the merits by allowing a default to be entered against him while the jurisdictional issue is being determined." ( In re Marriage of Merideth (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d

1984Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal. App.3d at p. 110 .) Accordingly, this court must review all factors relevant to the forum non conveniens inquiry.

1984Co. v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.App.3d at p. 110 .) Accordingly, this court must review all factors relevant to the forum non conveniens inquiry.

2022Claims that the previously chosen forum is unfair or inconvenient are generally rejected.” (See Berg v. MTC Electronics Technologies Co. (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 349 , 358–359.) “Under a traditional forum non conveniens analysis,” that is, one that does not involve a mandatory forum selection clause, 19 “[t]he defendant, as the moving party, has the burden of proof.” (See Intershop Communications AG, supra, 104 Cal.App.4th at pp. 196, 198.) “In contrast, in cases with a [mandatory] contractual forum selection clause, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, the party resisting the motion,” to “sh

2019Forum Non Conveniens A. Applicability of Sections 410.30 and 418.10 "When a court upon motion of a party or its own motion finds that in the *675 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." ( § 410.30, subd. (a).) " Section 410.30 is a codification of the doctrine of forum non conveniens [citation], but the principles governing enforcement of a forum selection clause are not the same as those applicable to motions based on forum non conveniens. [¶] In

2021(See Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 759, fn. 12 [“the locus of the alleged culpable conduct is a consideration in the forum non conveniens analysis”]; Roman v. Liberty University, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 670, 684 [“‘with respect to regulating or affecting conduct within its borders, the place of the wrong has the predominant interest’”]; Ford Motor Co. v. Insurance Co. of North America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 604, 612 [California had “a significant relationship to the underlying facts” in insurance coverage action where affirmative defense “depends entirely on events that happened in Calif

2014While a resident plaintiff’s choice of forum in his or her home state is afforded substantial weight in the forum non conveniens analysis (Ford, supra, 35 Cal.App.4th at p. 611 ), California’s interest in providing Bowers with a forum for his action is diminished by the fact that he was not a California resident when the events giving rise to the action occurred.

1976The doctrine of forum non conveniens, established in California by judicial decision (Goodwine v. Superior Court (1965) 63 Cal.2d 481 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 407 P.2d 1 ]; Price v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.

1976The doctrine of forum non conveniens, established in California by judicial decision (Goodwine v. Superior Court (1965) 63 Cal.2d 481 [ 47 Cal.Rptr. 201 , 407 P.2d 1 ]; Price v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.

2024In short, the staying court can protect . . . the interests of the California resident pending the final decision of the foreign court. ”’ (Id. at p. 857.) In light of the policy of assuring an adequate forum for the California resident, ‘the exceptional case which justifies the dismissal of a suit under the doctrine of forum non conveniens is one in which California cannot provide an adequate forum or has no interest in doing so.’ (Id. at p. 859, fn. omitted.)” (Van Keulen v. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 122, 129-130 .) This is no such exceptional case.

2024In addition to being unsupported by the authorities plaintiffs rely on, imposing the “seriously inconvenient” burden on Uber would be inconsistent with Stangvik’s description of one of the bases for the forum non conveniens doctrine: avoiding “ ‘an unchecked and unregulated importation of transitory causes of action for trial in this state.” (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751 ; see Van Keulen v. Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 122, 126, fn.2 [noting that where “plaintiffs were not California residents at the time that their claim arose, but subsequently became California

2022(Drulias v. 1st Century Bancshares, Inc. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 696, 703 (Drulias).) “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, supra, 54 Cal.3d 744, 751 .) Factors that courts consider include whether there is a suitable alternative forum, and whether the respective interests of the parties and public weigh in favor of retaining the action for trial in California.

2022Discussion “The proper procedure for enforcing a contractual forum selection clause in California is a motion pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure] section 410.30. [Citation.] That provision codifies the forum non conveniens doctrine, under which a trial court has discretion to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over a cause of action that it believes may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere. [Citations.] Where a section 410.30 motion is ‘based on a forum selection clause[,] . . . factors that apply generally to a forum non conveniens motion do not control. . . .’ [Citation.] Ins

2018Co. v. Superior Court , supra , 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 440 , 208 Cal.Rptr. 627 ["The principle that the doctrine of forum non conveniens protects the public interest as well as that of the litigants is paramount in our determination that the forum selection clause in this contract does not preclude the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens."].) The Decision in The Bremen Is Not Controlling Finally, we reject Quanta's argument that the trial court's ruling is inconsistent with the reasoning in TheBremen , supra , 407 U.S. 1 , 92 S.Ct. 1907 .

2018Co. v. Superior Court , supra , 162 Cal.App.3d at p. 440 , 208 Cal.Rptr. 627 ["The principle that the doctrine of forum non conveniens protects the public interest as well as that of the litigants is paramount in our determination that the forum selection clause in this contract does not preclude the application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens."].) The Decision in The Bremen Is Not Controlling Finally, we reject Quanta's argument that the trial court's ruling is inconsistent with the reasoning in TheBremen , supra , 407 U.S. 1 , 92 S.Ct. 1907 .