 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Anandan v. Singapore Airlines Ltd.4/5/2005
lic Interests
" he 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, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751.)
"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. [Citations.]" (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 751, citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235, 259-261, and Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501, 507-509.)
Appellants do not contend that the trial court failed to weigh the private and public interest factors. Indeed, considering private interests, the court found that the accident occurred in Taiwan, the investigation was conducted by the Taiwanese Aviation Safety Council, the majority of investigators were Taiwanese or Singaporean nationals, none of the plaintiffs is a California resident, and discovery will involve depositions in Singapore of witnesses not amenable to process in California. In considering public interests, the trial court found that no Californians are involved in the lawsuit, the aircraft and parts were manufactured and assembled outside California, and the only established connection with California was that the airplane was bound for California when it crashed.
This step "is within the trial court's discretion, and substantial deference is accorded its determination in this regard. [Citations.]" (Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 751-752.) It is the appellants' burden "`to establish an abuse of discretion, and unless a clear case of abuse is shown and unless there has been a miscarriage of justice a reviewing court will not substitute its opinion and thereby divest the trial court of its discretionary power.' [Citations.]" (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566.)
Appellants recognize that the grant or denial of a forum non conveniens motion is within the discretion of the trial court, but other than a conclusion in their reply brief, appellants do not contend that the trial court abused its discretion with regard to the parties' private interests or the public interest in retaining the action for trial in California. We may, in our discretion, deem an alleged error waived if asserted for the first time in the reply brief. (Hibernia Sav. and Loan Soc. v. Farnham (1908) 153 Cal. 578, 584.) And for the reasons that follow, we do deem that appellants have waived any claim of abuse of discretion relating to the trial court's consideration of the private and public interest factors.
Appellants contend that the evidence was insufficient to overcome their choice of forum, because the factors did not "strongly favor" Singapore. California is presumptively a convenient forum only for California residents, and since none of the plaintiffs is a California resident, there was no requirement that the factors balance strongly in favor of Singapore. (See Stangvik, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 754-755.) While the trial court had the authority to consider appellants' choice of forum along with other factors, it was not required to give it substantial weight, especially in light of the forum selection clau
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.
|
|