Auffret v. Capitales Tours
Filed 4/24/13 Auffret v. Capitales Tours CA6
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN
THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT
OLIVIER AUFFRET, et al.,
Plaintiffs and
Appellants,
v.
CAPITALES TOURS,
S.A., et al.,
Defendants and
Respondents.
H037551
(Monterey
County
Super. Ct.
Nos. M99601, M104580,
M110557, M111913)
In 2009 a
bus carrying 34 French tourists and their guide overturned, killing four (plus
the driver) and injuring many others.
Plaintiffs sued multiple defendants for negligence, wrongful death, and
related causes of action, along with a claim of strict liability under the
French Code of Tourism. After two years of discovery and settlements with some
of the defendants, the remaining three defendants sought a stay or dismissal
under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, on the ground that France
was a more suitable forum to try the plaintiffs' claims. The trial court stayed the action pending
acceptance of jurisdiction by a French court.
On appeal,
plaintiffs contend that the court's ruling was erroneous because the public and
private interest factors compelled retention of the case in
where the accident occurred and where the victims received medical treatment by
emergency and hospital personnel. After
considering the suitability of France
as an alternative forum and reviewing the trial court's balancing of the
requisite facts, we find no abuse of discretion and therefore must affirm the
order.
Background
The accident that led to this
pending litigation occurred on April 28, 2009, on Highway 101 in Monterey County.
While driving across a bridge the bus operator, John Egnew, lost control
of the vehicle, which collided with the right and left bridge rails and
eventually rolled onto its side.
Eighteen of the occupants were ejected; several of them were thrown over
the bridge onto the railroad tracks below.
Egnew and four passengers were killed, 21 were severely injured, and 10
sustained minor injuries.
On June 22, 2009, the first of four lawsuits,
was filed in superior court by most of the passengers or their families, naming
12 corporate and individual defendants.
The first amended complaint, filed March 25, 2010, asserted claims by 26
plaintiffs against Capitales Tours; Contact Amerique; Egnew's estate; and Weeks
Enterprises, Inc., doing business as Orion Pacific. These plaintiffs alleged causes of action for
strict liability under Article 211.17 of the French Code of Tourism; wrongful
death; negligence (against Orion Pacific and Egnew, its employee); vicarious
liability (respondeat superior) against Orion Pacific for Egnew's negligent
operation of the bus; negligence against the "Tour Operator
defendants"; loss of consortium; and breach of contract. Capitales Tours filed a cross-complaint against
Orion Pacific, Egnew's estate, and three new parties, including the bus
manufacturer, Prevost (U.S.), Inc.
On April 26, 2011, the same
plaintiffs filed a new action, Auffret et
al. v. Silvy Joncas, et al. The
parties thereafter stipulated to an order consolidating that case with the
original Auffret lawsuit and two
others arising from the same accident (Montmayeur
et al. v. Capitales Tours, et al. and Dangoisse
et al. v. VPG, et al.).
Meanwhile, on April 8, 2011, the
superior court granted the motion of Orion Pacific, the tour bus charter
company that had employed Egnew, to determine that it had reached a good faith
settlement with plaintiffs in all of the consolidated actions. Prevost also settled, and both defendants,
along with Egnew's estate and a number of other defendants and
cross-defendants, were dismissed. Only
Capitales Tours, Contact Amerique, and Silvy Joncas, Contact Amerique's sole
shareholder, remain as defendants in the consolidated action. Capitales Tours is a French company, while
Contact Amerique and Joncas are Canadian.
On May 27, 2011, Capitales Tours, joined by
Contact Amerique and Joncas, moved to dismiss or, alternatively, stay the
action under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Citing Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30,
defendants asserted that France was a suitable alternative forum and that both
public and private interest factors supported moving the litigation to
France. Both Joncas and the chairman of
Capitales Tours declared that if the court granted the motion, defendants would
submit to the jurisdiction of the French Civil Tribunal courts.
Plaintiffs urged the trial court to
deny the motion because they would "suffer untold hardship and a grossly
unjust result" if they were forced to try the case in France. Plaintiffs complained that defendants had
waited more than two years to bring the motion.
During that period they had obtained information they would not have
learned in France, by taking unfair advantage of discovery procedures in
California that were unavailable in French proceedings, including depositions,
written interrogatories, and requests for admissions. Most of the material witnesses, particularly
the emergency and hospital personnel, were in California, and they would be
available to testify. In addition, most of the documents, including medical
records and deposition transcripts, were in California. Plaintiffs estimated that they would incur
between $405,000 and $810,000 in expenses just to translate these documents
from English to French. They emphasized
that the emergency personnel and treating hospitals "would very likely
receive NOTHING" if the cases were transferred to France, and most
plaintiffs themselves would receive nothing beyond the $10 million they had
secured in the prior settlements, leaving them without the resources to pay
more than $5 million in outstanding medical bills. Plaintiffs thus urged the court to defer to
their choice of forum, as defendants had not shown that California was a
seriously inconvenient forum. California
would offer speedier resolution, with no undue burden to the Monterey County
court. Because this would be a
damages-only case, given the strict-liability nature of the French cause of
action, it was the California witnesses who would be potential material
witnesses at trial, and access to the bus itself would likely be
necessary. Plaintiffs also suggested
that the state and county would benefit by seeing that hospitals and emergency
care providers were paid for their services.
In support of their opposition,
plaintiffs submitted a declaration by Yves Hudina, counsel for many of the
plaintiffs in France. Hudina stated that
(1) trial would probably require three to five more years to conclude; (2) a
"significant number" of the plaintiffs would have no remedy in
France; (3) it was highly unlikely that plaintiffs would be able to recover the
cost of their medical treatment in the United States; and (4) Capitales Tours
was in a position to "exploit" information it had obtained from
plaintiffs in discovery, information that was "simply not available in
France." Finally, Hudina corrected
a misstatement by Capitales Tours's counsel, Gerard Honig, who had represented
that the Foustol and Tranchand plaintiffs had obtained an "interim
judgment." In fact, Hudina
explained, this was merely an interim order requiring travel agencies and
insurers to pay "some small sums of money to these plaintiffs from which
they were ordered to pay the medical expert appointed by the court." Neither of these couples had filed any claim
against Capitales Tours.
The superior court, however, found
defendants' position persuasive.
Following the analytical framework of Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, the trial judge
reasoned that France was a suitable alternative forum: even though there might
be "lesser remedies" there, compensation was still available under
the French Tourism Code, and the suitability of an alternative forum did not
require equivalent relief. The court
also found both public and private interest factors to favor France: California would not necessarily offer a
speedier resolution; testimony of California witnesses would not inevitably be
required in order to prove damages under the French system; translation costs
for medical records would still be incurred if the trial were held in
California; and this complex, multi-plaintiff case would contribute to court
congestion, particularly in light of recent court budget cuts. The judge further believed that plaintiffs
had underestimated the amount of trial time it would take in Monterey County,
given the questionable premise that defendants would concede liability and
litigate only damages. On the contrary,
the court anticipated multiple summary
adjudication motions.
Most compelling, the court reasoned,
were the facts that none of the plaintiffs or the remaining defendants was a
California resident and that plaintiffs were seeking application of the French
Tourism Code in their primary cause of action, which, along with translation
expenses, would be "logistically challenging." The court was not convinced that plaintiffs
would be prejudiced by information defendants had acquired in discovery, since
both sides had conducted extensive discovery.
Nor would the medical providers be prejudiced; the settlements provided
for payment to all of these lienholders.
Addressing the general economic picture in the community, the court
expressed reluctance to "call in jurors who are under economic duress most
likely . . . [and] ask
them to expend lots of time and for the Court to continue to spend lots of time
for a case in which California really has hardly any interest left."
Thus, the court concluded,
"This would seem to be the quintessential instance of a California jury
deciding a case in which the local community has little concern. France's competing interest in this
litigation clearly outweighs California's." In its ensuing order on September 21, 2011,
the court stayed the consolidated actions for one year. If France were to accept jurisdiction by that
time, the actions would be dismissed.
Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal from this order, pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure section 904.1, subdivision (a)(3).
Discussion
1. Scope of Review
Forum non conveniens is an equitable
doctrine allowing a court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction over a case
when it determines that the case " 'may be more appropriately and
justly tried elsewhere.' " (
54 Cal.3d 744, 751 (Stangvik).) The Legislature has sanctioned the
application of this doctrine in Code of Civil Procedure section 410.30,
subdivision (a),
title="">[3] which states: "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." As explained in the Judicial Council's
comment to this section, the provision "authorizes a court to decline to
exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate instances on the ground that the
plaintiff has unfairly or unreasonably invoked the jurisdiction of an
inconvenient forum."
The Supreme
Court in Stangvik set forth a
two-step analysis for a court considering a forum non conveniens motion. The court "must first determine whether
the alternate forum is a 'suitable' place for trial. If it is, the next step is
to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the
public in retaining the action for trial in California. The private interest
factors are those that make trial and the enforceability of the ensuing
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 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." (
751, citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
(1981) 454 U.S. 235, 259-261 (Piper)
and Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947)
330 U.S. 501, 507-509; see also Morris v.
AGFA Corp. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1463-1464.)
The burden
of proof is on the defendant, as the party asserting forum non conveniens. (Stangvik,
supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.) On
appeal, we review the ultimate ruling for abuse of discretion, and the lower
court's ruling is entitled to "substantial deference." (Ibid.) However, the "threshold
determination"-- the suitability of the alternative forum -- is examined
de novo. (Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th
1519, 1528, quoting Chong v. Superior
Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1036; Roman
v. Liberty University (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 670, 683; see also
752, fn. 3 [suitability question is not discretionary inquiry].) The second step entails a balancing of the
private and public interest factors, which "must be applied flexibly,
without giving undue emphasis to any one element." (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 753 & fn. 4.) The trial
court's balancing process "is entitled to substantial
deference." (Roulier v. Cannodale (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1189; Chong v. S
p. 1037.)
2. Timeliness of Motion
Before
considering the Stangvik factors, we
address plaintiffs' assertion that defendants' motion was prejudicially
untimely. Comparing this case to
Cal.App.4th 9 (Martinez), plaintiffs
contend that defendants took advantage of two years of discovery, following
procedures unavailable in France, to obtain evidence they will now be able to
use against plaintiffs, evidence they would not otherwise have had in the
French court system. Plaintiffs do not
identify the specific evidence to which they attribute prejudice; they rely on
Yves Hudina's declaration, which generally stated that Capitales Tours
possesses knowledge enabling it to "fashion arguments to limit or reduce
awards to the plaintiffs, thus giving Capitales Tours an unfair advantage if
these cases were to be transferred to France."
In
Explorer suffered a rollover accident while traveling in Mexico. The survivors and the heirs and estates of
two passengers sued Ford Motor Company (Ford), the Ford dealership in San Diego
where the vehicle was purchased, the tire manufacturer, and the San Diego tire
company that had sold the tires. The two
California defendants defaulted. The
remaining defendants, Ford and the tire manufacturer, obtained a transfer of
the case to Los Angeles and then conducted extensive discovery, most of which
could not have been obtained in Mexico.
The appellate court, reversing the grant of defendants' forum non
conveniens motion, found the "inequity of respondents' pretrial
maneuvers" to be "especially pronounced," rejecting Ford's claim
that it was reasonably unaware of the occupants' nationality until they
received discovery. (
had reason to know, at the time they were served, of the possible suitability
of Mexico as a forum more convenient than California for trying the case. They
did nothing, however, with that knowledge for 18 months. Instead, they affirmatively moved the case to
Los Angeles [County] Superior Court, where they took extensive discovery beyond
the scope of that needed to establish the basis of a motion for forum non
conveniens." (Id. at p. 21.)
The trial
court here distinguished Martinez by
noting that the transfer to Los Angeles was a pre-trial maneuver that had not
occurred in this case; this distinction weakened plaintiffs' assertion that
Capitales Tours was attempting to gain an unfair advantage. The court also expressed the view that it
would have been "fruitless" to move for dismissal while Orion Pacific
and Prevost were still involved as defendants.
As trial in California seemed inevitable, reciprocal discovery took
place. Thus, the court declined to
impose a penalty on defendants for the delay in bringing the motion.
We cannot
agree with plaintiffs that the court's ruling on the timeliness of the motion
must be overturned. As the First
District, Division Five observed in Britton
v. Dallas Airmotive, Inc. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 127, 135, "it may be
necessary to conduct discovery to develop the factual underpinnings of a forum
non conveniens motion. [Citation.] Further, to retain a case for the entire
duration of the litigation because the lack of connection to California was
unclear at the outset would impair the state's interest in avoiding burdening
courts and potential jurors with litigation in which the local community has
little concern." Whether Capitales
Tours engaged in "pretrial maneuvers" designed to secure a procedural
and evidentiary advantage was a factual issue for the trial court, not this
court, to make. The court properly found
that the timing of the motion following discovery did not amount to an unfair
litigation strategy comparable to that of the defendants in
basis for reversal on this ground.
3. Suitability of France as an
Alternative Forum
"The
availability of a suitable alternative forum is critical." (American
Cemwood Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 431,
435.) An alternative forum will
be found suitable where an action " 'can be brought,' although not
necessarily won. There is no balancing
of interests in this decision, nor any discretion to be exercised." (Shiley
Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 126, 132; accord,
Assurance Co. , supra, 87 Cal.App.4th at p. 437 [forum is generally
suitable "if there is jurisdiction and no statute of limitations bar to
hearing the case on the merits"].)
That California provides a more favorable or "meaningful"
remedy, or that recovery is more difficult in the alternative forum, does not
make the alternative forum unsuitable. (
Cal.App.4th 1187; Stangvik, supra,
54 Cal.3d at p. 754, fn. 5.) Only if the
foreign jurisdiction offers "no remedy at all" does the law of that
jurisdiction contravene its suitability.
(Guimei v. General Elec. Co.
(2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 689, 696-697; accord, Investors Equity Life Holding Co. v. Schmidt (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th
1519, 1530.) This no-remedy exception is
applied rarely, "such as where the alternative forum is a foreign country
whose courts are ruled by a dictatorship, so that there is no independent judiciary
or due process of law." (
4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 133-134; accord, Hahn
v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1188-89; Guimei v. General Electric Co., supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p.
697.) If the exception were broadened,
"it would undermine important public interests, particularly the interest
in avoiding congesting California courts and overburdening California
taxpayers. The law does not require that California courts become the
depository for nonresident plaintiffs' cases involving causes of action [that]
are not recognized or would not be successful in those plaintiffs' home
[forum]." (Shiley Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at p.
134; accord, Hahn v. Diaz-Barba, supra,
194 Cal.App.4th at p. 1189.)
Here,
defendants have agreed to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the French
courts, and a remedy is available, though it may be less favorable than
plaintiffs could obtain in superior court in California. This is enough to permit a stay. The trial court did acknowledge the
possibility that the French court might not assume jurisdiction, by only
staying, not dismissing, the matter in Monterey County. That ruling was not in itself erroneous. If the French courts finally decline to take
jurisdiction over Capitales Tours's lawsuit,
that France is not a suitable alternative forum for plaintiffs' action, and we
presume that the Monterey County Superior Court will lift the stay and reset
the matter for trial. (See
752, quoting Judicial Council comment to section 410.30 [" 'the
action will not be dismissed unless a suitable alternative forum is available
to the plaintiff' "]; see also Shiley
Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 132-133 [there
must be jurisdiction over the defendant and no bar of a statute of
limitations].) Given the tentative
nature of the procedural posture before us, however, we must conclude that at
this point there is no bar to a finding that France is a suitable forum.
4. Private and Public Interest Factors
Plaintiffs
assert an abuse of discretion and lack of evidence to support the trial court's
determination that the second step of the Stangvik
analysis favored moving the case to France.
Plaintiffs vigorously argue that their choice of forum is entitled to
great weight, and that defendants failed to overcome this
"presumption" by showing that California would be a
The two
premises of this argument, however, are both flawed. First, when the plaintiff is not a California
resident, his or her choice of forum is not entitled to great weight. "Where . . . the
plaintiff resides in a foreign country, Piper
holds that the plaintiff's choice of forum is much less reasonable and is not
entitled to the same preference as a resident of the state where the action is
filed." (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 755.) Indeed, our Supreme Court commented, "It
is difficult to justify giving preferential status to a plaintiff's choice of
forum if the plaintiff is not a resident."
(Ibid., fn. 7.) Accordingly, appellate courts have properly
rejected the argument plaintiffs make here.
(See, e.g., Campbell v.
Parker-Hannifin Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1534, 1541, 1543;
(1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 408, 412; Chong v.
Superior Court, supra, 58 Cal.App.4th at p. 1039; cf.
Intern. Shipping Corp. (2007) 549 U.S. 422, 430 [appropriateness of chosen
forum is less reasonable when plaintiff's choice is not its home forum].)
Nor is it
necessary that defendants establish that California is a "seriously
inconvenient forum," as plaintiffs adamantly contend. The case on which they rely,
America (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 604, 611, created the "seriously
inconvenient" language as the showing defendant must make to overcome the
plaintiff's choice of forum; but clearly this standard is at best inapplicable
to nonresident plaintiffs. Even the case
cited by the Ford Motor court,
Co. (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1553,
1561, did not create such a blanket rule.
In any event, Ford Motor
involved a dismissal of an action, not a stay as is the case here, and thus its
"seriously inconvenient" standard does not apply. (Century
Indemnity Co. v. Bank of America, supra,
58 Cal.App.4th at p. 412.) The trial court "has considerably wider
discretion to grant stays precisely because under a stay California retains
jurisdiction." (Id. at p.
411.)
In its
ruling the trial court expressly determined that the private and public
interest factors "weigh[ed] against litigation in California." The court was not convinced by plaintiffs'
assertion that the case would resolve more quickly here, as the case had not
yet been set for trial. The court
further noted that translation costs would be incurred
whether trial took place in California or in France; and the
costs of translating the medical records and emergency personnel reports for
the French court would "pale in comparison" to the translation
expenses that would be necessary if the case were tried here.
governed by strict liability, the trial court was not convinced that the
testimony of California witnesses would be required.
On appeal,
plaintiffs challenge this reasoning, contending that defendants' showing was
"deficient" and devoid of supporting evidence. Relying on the declaration of Yves Hudina,
plaintiffs insist that testimony would be needed from first responders and
medical personnel in order for a full recovery to be awarded. Yet, plaintiffs point out, two fire
department chiefs stated by declaration that they would be unavailable to testify
in France; and according to Hudina, the expense of translating medical records,
deposition transcripts, and discovery responses would be
"prohibitive." Hudina also
anticipated a delay of three to five years for some plaintiffs. Medical providers submitted declarations
conveying their certainty that unless the court retained the case, they would
not be paid for the balance of the amounts due for their services, and they
would not be financially able to travel to France to testify. And plaintiffs' counsel represented that
plaintiffs were willing to incur inconvenience to have the case heard here; at
least one plaintiff was willing to travel to Monterey to testify at trial,
since that inconvenience would be "grossly outweighed" by the need to
have the medical providers available without the necessity of translation,
Plaintiffs
further dispute the findings that the public interest factors favor moving the
case to France. The court found
"little doubt that this multi-plaintiff case which has been consolidated
with three other cases will contribute to court congestion. This is especially so in light of the recent,
significant and unprecedented cuts made to the budget of the California state
courts. Multiple summary
judgment/adjudication motions are currently set to be heard in this case, and
the translation requirements for testimony at trial by multiple French
witnesses would be logistically challenging for a California court and jury, as
would the application of a French Tourism Code.
[¶] But perhaps more compelling
is that none of the remaining defendants are California[] entities, none of the
plaintiffs are California residents, the tour at issue was for the benefit of
French residents and plaintiffs seek the application of French law. This would seem to be the quintessential
instance of a California jury deciding a case in which the local community has
little concern. France's competing
interest in this litigation clearly outweighs California's."
In our
view, the private interest factors do not clearly point to litigation in
France. To the extent that it is a
viable consideration, the availability of a remedy in France was acutely
disputed in the opinions of the consultants for both sides.
to travel here for trial and suffer other inconvenience for the benefit of
having emergency personnel and other medical providers available to
testify. Nevertheless, we recognize that
the balancing of private and public interest factors must be undertaken with flexibility,
"without giving undue emphasis to any one element." (Stangvik,
supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 753.)
Furthermore, the court was not required to base its ruling on an
"extensive evidentiary showing."
(Campbell v. Parker-Hannifin
Corp., supra, 69
Cal.App.4th at p. 1542; accord, Morris v.
AGFA Corp., supra, 144
Cal.App.4th at p. 1462.) As noted
earlier, the trial court's balancing of these factors is entitled to
substantial deference. (
1188, citing Chong v. Superior Court,
supra, 58 Cal.App.4th 1032, 1037.)
Given the
documentary evidence submitted by the parties, the trial court had a sufficient
basis for inferring that there would be excessive costs associated with the
translation of documents and testimony from French to English. The court not only weighed the comparative
expense to the parties of trying this complex case in California against trial
in a French court, but also emphasized the community's interest in avoiding
excessive court congestion and stress on jurors created by litigation between
parties that were all residents of either France or Canada. The court did consider plaintiffs' argument
that the community has an interest in seeing that its medical providers are
reimbursed for their services. It noted,
however, that the emergency care providers had agreed to enforce their existing
liens on only the amount plaintiffs were to recover from Capitales Tours. This circumstance, the court suggested,
negated their reimbursement prospects as a public interest factor. The court expressed a legitimate concern that
this complex, multi-plaintiff case would burden the already congested calendar;
and, as the Supreme Court commented, "preventing court congestion
resulting from the trial of foreign causes of action is an important factor in
the forum non conveniens analysis."
(Stangvik, supra, 54
Cal.3d at p. 758.) Thus, even if the
private interests of the plaintiffs could be said to outweigh those of
Capitales Tours and Contact Amerique, there were strong indications that the
public would not be served by retaining the case in Monterey County Superior
Court.
"A
court has exercised discretion appropriately when it acts within the range of
options available under governing legal criteria in light of the evidence
before it." (Hansen v. Owens-Corning
Fiberglas Corp. (1996) 51 Cal.App.4th 753, 758.) An abuse of discretion may be found only if
" 'no judge could have reasonably reached the challenged result. [Citation.]
"[A]s long as there exists 'a reasonable or even fairly debatable
justification, under the law, for the action taken, such action will not be
. . . set aside.' " ' " (Guimei
v. General Elec. Co. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 689, 696.) Here, both parties may suffer inconvenience
and expense from litigating the case in the forum preferred by the other
party. But as the Supreme Court made
clear in Stangvik, supra, 54
Cal.3d at page 762, "these problems are implicit in many cases in which
forum non conveniens motions are made, and it is for the trial court to decide
which party will be more inconvenienced."
Here we cannot say that the trial court, having evaluated the evidence
bearing on the public and private interest factors, abused its discretion in
concluding that this case would be more appropriately tried in France.
Disposition
The order
staying these consolidated actions is affirmed.
______________________________
ELIA,
Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
____________________________________
BAMATTRE-MANOUKIAN,
J.
____________________________________
MÃRQUEZ, J.
name="_ftn1" title="">[1] We describe the underlying events as reported
in plaintiffs' complaint and in the summary provided by the California Highway
Patrol's investigation team.
name="_ftn2" title="">[2]
Plaintiffs' counsel responded to this comment by asserting that plaintiffs
would waive a jury.
