 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anandan v. Singapore Airlines Ltd.4/5/2005
n no suggestion that default was or should be entered against any of the defendants.
And appellants have provided no authority even suggesting that the time limits to the filing of a motion to dismiss based upon forum non conveniens are jurisdictional. Indeed, after the defendant has made a general appearance, such a motion may be made at any time, by a party or by the court on its own motion. (See § 410.30, subd. (a).) Thus, a tardy motion by a defendant who has not made a general appearance does not result in the court's loss of jurisdiction to hear the motion, although the defendant may have to seek relief from default to avoid making a general appearance. (See § 418.10, subds. (a), (d); § 418.11.)
In any event, even if we were to construe the statute as appellants wish, they have not provided a record that is adequate to consider their timeliness contention. Appellants contend that the motions should have been filed within 30 days after the Superior Court received the case on remand, but they do not refer to evidence in the record establishing when the case was received by the Superior Court, and there is no notation of such event in the Superior Court's docket.
It is not the province of the reviewing court to search the record in order to ascertain whether it contains evidence which will support a claim of error. (Leming v. Oilfields Trucking Co. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 343, 356.) It is the appellant's burden to show reversible error with an adequate record. (Ballard v. Uribe (1986) 41 Cal.3d 564, 574-575.) Since appellants have failed to meet that burden, we must presume that any items missing from the record would support the court's order. (See Bennett v. McCall (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127.)
3. Singapore as a Suitable Forum
"In determining whether to grant a motion based on forum non conveniens, a 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." (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751 (Stangvik).) " he moving party . . . bears the burden of proof." (Id. at p. 751.) We apply a de novo standard of review to the first determination, and an abuse of discretion standard to the second. (American Cemwood Corp. v. American Home Assurance Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 431, 436.)
Respondents claimed that Singapore would be a suitable forum. A forum is "suitable" if there is jurisdiction over the defendant and the action will not be barred by a statute of limitations. (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 752.) Appellants contend that respondents failed to meet their burden to prove that Singapore was suitable, because it failed to demonstrate that Singapore would have jurisdiction over the parties or the dispute.
Respondents submitted the declaration of Singapore attorney, Lok Vi Ming. Lok stated that he was a member of the Singapore bar, having practiced law there since 1986, and that he had extensive litigation experience. He stated that he was familiar with the Singapore Rules of Court, as well as Singapore statutory and common law, which is modeled on English common law. He explained that Singapore's High Court has original jurisdiction over civil matters involving a claim of any amount, and appeals may be taken from that court's judgments to the Court of Appeal.
Lok further stated that Singapore statute provides, "The High Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and try any action in personam where . . . the defendant is served with . . . process submits to the jurisdiction of the High Court." Actions for personal i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|