Anandan v. Singapore Airlines Ltd.4/5/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
BACKGROUND
This action was commenced by fourteen plaintiffs on October 31, 2001, with a complaint for damages for wrongful death and personal injuries suffered when Singapore Airlines Flight 006 crashed shortly after takeoff from Taipei, Taiwan on October 31, 2000. Although not alleged in the complaint, the parties agree that the plaintiffs are twelve residents of Singapore and two residents of Taiwan. The complaint names as defendants, Singapore Airlines, Eva Airways Corporation, The Boeing Company, and Goodrich Corporation, and is based upon allegations of negligence, strict product liability, and breach of warranty.
According to the Superior Court's docket, one of the defendants filed an answer to the complaint on March 19, 2002, and the matter was removed to federal court on March 26, 2002. On November 8, 2002, the federal court entered an order remanding the action to state court. On March 10, 2003, Singapore Airlines filed one motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens, which was not heard, and then filed another on October 3, 2003. Eva Airlines filed a similar motion on October 3, 2003, and the remaining defendants joined in the motions.
The motions were heard by the trial court on November 7, 2003. On January 7, 2004, the court pronounced a detailed tentative ruling granting the motions, intended to become the court's final order on January 30, 2004. No final order or judgment had been ordered by the time of the next case management review hearing on February 26, 2004, and the court granted the motions effective February 26, 2004. The order was entered into the minutes on that date, and expressly provided that it was to be the court's final order. Appellants' notice of appeal was filed on April 30, 2004, purporting to appeal from the trial court's oral pronouncement of February 26, 2004.
DISCUSSION
1. Request to Augment Record
As a preliminary matter, we consider appellants' request to augment the record to include a written order granting the motions to dismiss, apparently submitted by counsel for Goodrich Company, approved as to form by counsel for the other defendants, signed by the judge, and entered on April 16, 2004.
An order granting a forum non conveniens motion is appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 904.1, subd. (a)(3); see Gould, Inc. v. Health Sciences, Inc. (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 687, 690, fn. 1.) Although the court's minutes do not order or permit a written order, the trial court granted leave at the request of respondents' counsel at the review hearing of February 26, 2004, to submit a written order if necessary to correct any portion of the court's order. The same day, however, the court then entered a minute order expressly providing that it would be the final order of the court, and it contained no direction that a written order be prepared. The subsequently signed and entered order submitted by respondent did not make any substantive changes to the court's original order.
The minute order granting the motions was therefore the final appealable order. (See Gould, Inc. v. Health Sciences, Inc., supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at p. 690, fn. 1; see also, Hughey v. City of Hayward (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 206, 208-209; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2(d)(2).) We nevertheless grant appellants' request to augment the record with the order of A
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|